J  s 


UC-NRLF 


^B    Sfl3    SSS 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

University  of  California. 

GIFT    OF 

.Ur./V%/»*^ f^......j/J 


n 


/yvA-^ L.\ ^J..^.t<^V\A*vy7.. 

Class 


MAYOR  VS.  COUNCIL 

Should  a  system  of  municipal  government,  concentrating  all  cxccu*' 

tive  and  administrative  powers  in  the  mayor,  be  adopted 

in  cities  of  the  United  States? 


THE  TWENTY<.SEVENTH 


ANNUAL  JOINT  DEBATE 


OF  THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 


#% 
%# 


SINGLE  COPY,  POSTPAID,  FIFTY  CENTS 


CEO.  B.  NELSON 

703  STATE  ST.,  MADISON,  WtS. 


<^JS^R^S 


OFTHE 


UNIVERS 

OF 


ITY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN  VIEWS 


MAYOR  VS.  COUNCIL 

Should  a  system  of  municipal  government,  concentrating  all  execu/' 

tive  and  administrative  powers  in  the  mayor,  be  adopted 

in  cities  of  the  United  States? 


THE  TWENTY^SEVENTH 


ANNUAL  JOINT  DEBATE 


OF  THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 


SINGLE  COPY,  POSTPAID, .FIFTY  CENTS 


CEO.  B.  NELSON 

703  STATE  ST.,  MADISON,  WIS. 


^€- 


Copyright,  1897 
By  Theo.  W.  Brazeau. 


Tracy,  Gibbs  &  Co.,  Printers,  Madison,  Wis. 


c^ 
f^ 


tlwenty^Seventh  Unnual  Joint  Debate 


PRESIDENT  OF  THE  EVENING,  PROF.  D.  B.  FRANKENBURGER 


DEBATE 


Question — Should  a  system  of  municipal  government  concen= 
trating  all  executive  and  administrative  powers  in  the  Mayor  be 
adopted  in  cities  of  the  United  States  of  over  forty  thousand  inhabit 
tants? 

INTERPRETATION 

"Executive  and  administrative  powers"  to  include  the  sole  power  to  appoint 
and  to  remove  all  heads  of  departments  and  chief  City  Officers  (except  the 
Treasurer  and  Comptroller.  The  Comptroller  to  have  only  the  powers  of  an 
accounting  officer.)  All  subordinates  shall  be  appointed  by  the  head  of  their 
respective  department,  under  Civil  Service  rules,  and  may  be  removed  by  the 
same  for  cause  other  than  political.  The  Mayor,  the  heads  of  the  departments 
and  the  city  officers  in  their  respective  capacities  shall  have  the  power:  to 
make  all  contracts;  to  purchase  all  materials  and  supplies;  to  have  charge  of 
Ihe  construction,  improvement,  extension  and  management  of  all  public  streets, 
works  and  property;  to  grant  all  licenses  and  franchises,  subject  to  confirmation 
by  the  common  council;  to  make  all  estimates  for  the  following  fiscal  year, 
said  estimates  not  to  be  increased  by  the  council. 

Conceded  that  the  system  is  valid  under  the  laws  and  constitutions  of  the 
States  and  of  the  United  States. 


AFFIRMATiVE-ATHEN>e  NEGATIVE-PHILOMATHIA 

Julius  Gilbertson  Frank  E.  Compton 

J.  W.  Page  .George  B.  Nelson 

Otto  Bosshard  Theodore  W.  Brazeau 


Judges:         Rev.  E.  G.  Updike  Mr.  Reuben  Gold  TAwaitej 

Judge  Romanzo  Bunn 


DECISION  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE 


PREFACE 


The  literary  societies  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin  submit 
this,  the  Twenty-Seventh  Annual  Joint  Debate,  with  the  hope 
that  it  will  be  as  favorably  received  by  the  public,  as  those 
of  previous  years. 

Since  the  first  joint  debate  between  the  literary  societies 
of  the  University  in  1867,  the  debate  has  taken  place  almost 
regularly  each  year  and  is  to-day  one  of  the  most  important 
college  events.  The  investigation  for  each  successive  debate 
has  become •<  broader  and  closer,  until  now  the  contestants 
spend  a  whole  year  in  careful  preparation.  For  a  number  of 
years  the  debates  have  been  published  and  have  been  received 
with  favorable  comment  by  the  most  eminent  authorities. 

The  growth  and  success  of  the  Joint  Debate  has  been  partly 
due  to  a  peculiar  and  admirable  organization  of  debating 
societies  which  has  existed  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
for  years,  but  more  largely  due  to  the  head  of  department  of 
rhetoric  and  oratory.  Prof.  D.  B.  Frankenburger,  who  has 
done  everything  to  defend  and  strengthen  the  debating  socie- 
ties and  to  encourage  scientific  argumentation. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  debate,  the  contestants  visited 
all  the  cities  under  the  centralized  system  and  made  a  per- 
sonal investigation  of  its  practical  workings.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  results  of  their  work,  which  is  briefly  summarized  in 
the  following  pages,  will  add  something  of  value  to  this  im- 
portant subject. 

THEO.  W.  BRAZEAU,  Publisher. 


UNIVhKSII  Y 

OF 


INTRODUCTION 

The  Opinions  of  the  Six  Debaters  on  the  Proper  Organization  of  a  City 

Qovernment. 


JULIUS  GILBERTSON 

I  regard  the  * 'mayor  system"  the  best  form  of  government 
under  existing  conditions.  The  true  principles  of  democracy 
are  opposed  to  all  tendencies  towards  centralization.  But  in 
spite  of  this  fact,  the  system,  which  concentrates  large  pow- 
ers in  the  hands  of  one  man,  is  the  only  system  which  can 
bring  home  to  the  average  American  voter,  any  realization  of 
his  civic  responsibility.  The  reformation  of  our  cities  will 
be  the  result  of  evolution. 

The  presence  of  large  aggregation  of  foreign-born  people, 
not  yet  familiar  with  our  institution,  together  with  the  sa- 
loon, tramp  and  semi-criminal  vote,  is  the  great  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  reform.  Our  large  cities  are  conglomerations  of 
nationalities  and  classes.  Under  such  conditions  there  can 
be  no  sense  of  social  unity  or  civic  responsibility,  without 
which  responsible  self-government  will  surely  fail.  The  ref- 
ormation, I  believe,  will  be  brought  about  through  independ- 
ent political  movements.  The  average  voter  is  the  slave  of 
his  party  and  until  this  state  of  affairs  is  changed,  but  little 
improvement  can  be  expected.  Every  party  will  be  ruled  by 
a  certain  set  of  men  called  the  "machine."  Under  existing 
laws  and  circumstances  the  chances  are  nine  out  of  ten,  that 
the  machine  is  corrupt.  Reformation  will  come  by  the  edu- 
cation of  the  rising  generations  to^  a  conception  of  municipal 
patriotism,  independence  and  civic  responsibility.  Caucus 
and  election  laws  must  then  be  passed  which  will  give  effect 
to  these  new  forces,  and  prevent  selfish  and  corrupt  men  from 
controlling  party  organizations. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  a  large  majority  of  the  peo- 


pie  desire  good  government.  We  have  not  reached  the 
stage  where  they  will  rise  up  in  their  might  and  demand  it. 
May  the  time  soon  come  when  they  will. 

F.  E.  COMPTON 

I  believe  in  the  "council  system"  as  the  ultimate  and  best 
system  of  government  for  all  American  cities.  I  believe  in 
giving  the  council  practically  all  power,  as  it  has  in  English 
cities.  The  organization  should  be  as  follows.  A  council  of 
a  single  chamber  composed  of  members  chosen  from  large  dis- 
tricts or  at  large.  A  double  chamber  is  a  useless  complica- 
tion and  a  decided  step  backward  in  municipal  organization. 
A  mayor  chosen  by  the  council  and  responsible  to  that  body. 
Single  heads  of  departments  chosen  by  the  council.  The 
American  plan  of  meeting  every  abuse  of  power  by  the  crea- 
tion of  a  board  or  commission,  each  member  of  which  is  to 
act  as  a  check  on  the  others,  is  illogical,  inefficient,  and  a 
complete  and  undeniable  failure  in  practice.  There  must  be 
single  heads  for  each  department  no  matter  what  form  of 
government  is  adopted.  To  complete  the  plan  all  subordin- 
ates should  be  chosen  under  civil  service  rules.  While  the 
extremely  centralized  system  may  work  well  in  some  cities, 
and  for  a  time  bring  relief,  the  system  is  no  guarantee  of 
good  citj'  government.  The  adoption  of  such  a  system  means 
practically  the  abolition  of  the  representative  body,  the  com- 
mon council,  and  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  ''one  man 
power,"  to  which  the  American  people  are  heartily  opposed. 
It  can  never  be  a  permanent  system. 

If  we  are  to  have  better  municipal  government  there  must 
come,  together  with  the  better  organization  of  our  system,  a 
great  change  in  social  and  political  conditions.  First  of  all 
voters  must  cease  to  divide  on  party  lines,  and  vote  for  the 
best  candidate  presented  for  the  office;  greater  interest  must 
be  taken  in  the  primaries  so  that  better  men  will  be  nomi- 
nated. This  may  be  possible  only  after  some  legal  regulation 
of  the  primaries  is  brought  about.      Better  men  must  be  will- 


ing  to  sacrifice  a  little  time  in  the  service  of  the  municipality 
— at  least  the  time  necessary  to  vote.  These  changes  will 
come  through  education  brought  about  by  unceasing  agita- 
tion. ' 

J,  W.  PAGE 

Any  view  of  municipal  affairs  that  fails  to  consider  the  su- 
perior opportunities  for  men  of  ability  in  private  life  to  those 
offered  in  public  service,  that  forgets  that  the  first  interest  of 
our  people  is  commercial  not  governmental,  that  neglects  the 
influence  of  the  heterogeneous  and  transitory  character  of  our 
urban  population  and  the  ease  with  which  unassimilated  classes 
are  controlled  by  political  bosses,  is  inadequate  to  a  true  un- 
derstanding of  our  municipal  failures.  Our  cities  are  passing 
through  a  transitory  state,  and  at  least  while  this  condition 
lasts,  large  and  almost  despotic  powers  must  be  lodged  in  the 
mayor.  However,  the  council  is  the  weak  department  of  city 
government,  and  ultimate  reform,  it  seems  to  me,  must  come 
from  an  improvement  of  that  body.  Meanwhile  the  govern- 
ment should  be  made  as  simple  as  possible,  to  the  end  that 
busy  citizens  may,  with  a  limited  expenditure  of  time  and 
effort,  gain  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  city  affairs.  The 
city  reports,  now  often  a  mass  of  unintelligible  and  unimpor- 
tant details,  should  be  simplified  and  by  statute  made  uniform 
throughout  each  state,  that  cities  may  gain  by  the  experience 
of  others  in  municipal  undertakings  and  by  comparison  of 
expenditures. 

The  tendency  toward  less  legislative  interference  and  more 
responsibility  in  the  cities  seems  to  be  a  movement  in  the 
right  direction,  but  restrictions  on  the  taxing  and  debt  crea- 
ting powers  must  be  maintained.  The  general  adoption  of 
civil  service  laws  will  be  a  valuable  improvement.  The  may- 
or's cabinet,  as  tried  in  Boston,  has  been  successful,  and  state 
boards  of  municipal  control  have  elements  of  strength  for  the 
reform  of  our  municipalities. 


Q.  B.  NELSON 

A  year's  study  of  municipal  charters,  together  with  quite  a 
complete  investigation  into  the  practical  workings  of  the  va- 
rious systems,  ought  to  have  given  me  settled  convictions  on 
the  question  of  municipal  organization,  yet  this  is  not  quite 
the  case.  When  I  contrast  the  present  loosely  organized  and 
irresponsible  system,  with  a  system  which  concentrates  all  ex- 
ecutive and  administrative  power  in  the  mayor,  I  have  no 
doubt  as  to  which  is  the  better  system.  In  such  a  compari- 
son I  think  the  concentrated  system  vastly  preferable.  But 
when  I  compare  the  mayor  system  with  a  system  organized 
with  the  aim  of  giving  large  powers  to  the  city  council,  I  find 
myself  uncertain  as  to  which  one  to  choose. 

I  have  not  studied  the  mayor  system  without  becoming  a 
thorough  admirer  of  many  of  its  features,  but  at  the  same 
time  I  have  not  failed  to  recognize  some  of  the  dangers  and 
evil  tendencies  of  such  a  system. 

The  mayor  should  undoubtedly  have  large  powers  and 
should  be  held  correspondingly  responsible,  and  in  nearly  all 
cases  there  should  be  single  heads  of  departments  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  city  affairs,  but  I  cannot  sanction  a  system 
which  practically  makes  the  mayor  the  entire  city  govern- 
ment. Such  a  system  may  be  partially  justified  from  a  stand- 
point of^present  conditions.  Perhaps  no  system  will  arouse 
the  people  to  a  realization  of  their  civic  duty  quite  so  well, 
but  it  seems  to  me  to  represent  the  temporary  and  not  the 
permanent  system.  Under  the  mayor  system  the  council  has 
a  tendency  to  remain  bad,  if  not  to  become  actually  worse. 
When  the  people  fix  the  greater  part  of  their  attention  upon 
the  election  of  mayor,  the  council  must  suffer.  Little  im- 
provement in  its  character  can  be  hoped  for.  The  mayor  can 
never  be  all  of  the  city  government,  for  a  strong  council  is 
indispensable  to  a  city  government.  At  the  present  time  I 
believe  the  great  problem  in  our  cities  is  to  improve  the  coun- 
cils. We  can  never  have  good  city  government  as  a  perma- 
nent thing  until  the  councils  are   improved.       I  would  there- 


fore  favor  a  system  with  a  council  of  a  single  chamber,  chosen 
at  large  and  with  power  to  choose  the  mayor.  The  mayor 
thus  chosen,  should  have  absolute  power  to  appoint  and  re- 
move his  heads  of  departments.  This  would  make  the  elec- 
tion of  a  council  the  all  important  thing.  It  would  give  us 
located  responsibility  and  unity,  a  good  council  and  a  power- 
ful mayor,  and  a  system   eminently  republican. 

OTTO  BOSSHARD 

Under  existing  conditions,  I  believe  the  ''federal  plan,"  as 
outlined  in  the  question  discussed,  the  system  best  adapted 
to  the  government  of  American  cities.  First,  because  the 
system  is  simple,  thus  giving  opportunity  for  more  efficient 
and  economical  administration  than  is  possible  under  the 
complex  and  cumbersome  "council"  or  "commission"  sys- 
tems. Second,  because  under  this  system  responsibility  is 
definitely  located,  thereby  lessening  the  opportunity  for  cor- 
ruption, which  under  the  present  system  with  division  of 
responsibility  can  flourish  without  fear  of  detection  or  punish- 
ment. 

There  is  of  course  much  truth  in  the  statement  that  "any 
system  will  work  well  if  administered  by  honest  and  capable 
officials."  But  the  very  difficulty  with  our  present  systems 
has  been  in  securing  such  men. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  in  politics  that  the  less  important 
the  office  the  less  care  exercised  by  the  electors  in  filling  it. 
This  has  been  especially  true  in  the  selection  of  aldermen  in 
the  larger  cities.  Consequently  our  city  councils  contain  a 
large  per  cent,  of  incapable  and  dishonest  men,  and  when 
the  administration  of  municipal  affairs  is  in  their  hands  it 
suffers. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  now,  when  the  mayor  has  little 
real  power,  political  parties  generally  present  a  candidate  for 
that  office  with  far  greater  ability  for  municipal  service  than 
the  average  alderman.  Charges  of  corruption  or  incompe- 
tency are  not   as  often  brought   against  the  mayor  as  against 


10 

the  council.  This  being  true,  it  is  but  natural  to  conclude 
that  the  * 'federal  system"  where  the  dignity  and  importance 
of  the  office  will  be  much  greater  than  at  present,  even  better 
men  will  be  chosen  mayor,  thus  insuring  more  satisfactory 
administration. 

Were  it  not  for  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  honest  and  capa- 
ble aldermen  in  our  larger  cities,  the  council  system  would 
be  preferable,  for  it  is  more  democratic,  i.  e. ,  it  gives  the 
citizens  a  larger  and  more  direct  share  in  the  actual  adminis- 
tration of  the  city.  But  as  long  as  conditions  remain  as  at 
present,  the  federal  plan,  insuring  as  it  does  the  selection  of 
a  better  mayor  seems  preferable  to  a  system  which  would 
concentrate  all  power  in  the  council. 

THEO.  W.  BRAZEAU 

The  typical  American  municipal  organization,  with  its 
boards,  commissions,  and  other  complications,  though  not 
the  sole  or  even  greatest  cause  of  poor  city  government,  is  no 
doubt  an  evil,  which  must  be  removed  before  the  best  results 
can  be  obtained.  Between  a  system  of  checks  and  balances 
such  as  we  have  at  present,  and  a  system  which  concentrates 
all  executive  and  administrative  power  in  the  mayor  and  sin- 
gle heads  of  departments,  the  latter  is  without  a  question  far 
better.  ^  Under  the  conditions  which  prevail  in  many  cities  at 
present  it  is  perhaps  the  only  form  of  organization  which 
would  give  good  results.  Between  the  ''mayor  system," 
however,  as  a  permanent  system,  and  a  system  which  vests 
great  power  in  the  council,  I  am  convinced  that  the  "council 
system"  must  be  the  final  and  permanent  organization;  not 
because  European  cities  have  had  good  government  under 
such  a  system,  but  because  it  is  the  simplest  and  most  con- 
sistent organization. 

As  long  as  the  people  elect  an  independent  executive,  it 
will  be  found  difficult,  if  not  impossible  to  concentrate  the 
proper  attention  on  the  election  of  a  strong  council,  and  that 
branch  of  the   city  government  will  be  neglected,  no  matter 


II 

how  important  its  duties.  If  the  council  is  stripped  of  its 
powers,  it  will  become  only  a  clog  upon  our  municipal  machin- 
ery. A  strong  mayor  and  strong  council  cannot  exist  to- 
gether unless  the  mayor  is  chosen  by  the  council.  No  one 
would  think  of  vesting  all  power,  both  legislative  and  execu- 
tive in  the  mayor  alone,  or  of  abolishing  the  council,  nor 
would  such  a  system  secure  the  best  results.  Neither  would 
one  propose  to  have  the  council,  in  this  country,  conduct  all 
executive  and  administrative  as  well  as  legislative  work.  The 
system  which  seems  best  adapted  to  our  conditions  is  to  have 
a  mayor  the  executive  and*  administrative  head  of  the  city, 
elected  by  the  council;  to  have  each  department  under  a  sin- 
gle head  appointed  by  the  mayor;  and  to  have  a  council  of  a 
single  chamber,  the  councilmen  to  be  elected  from  large  dis- 
tricts. Under  such  a  system  it  would  be  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  the  people  to  elect  a  good  council  before  they  could 
have  good  government,  but  their  whole  attention  would  be 
centered  on  the  election  of  aldermen,  and  not  divided  as  at 
present.  Such  a  system  would  also  secure  perfect  responsi- 
bility. 

Of  course  no  change  of  organization  will  bring  good  gov- 
ernment. It  will  make  good  government  easier  ta  obtain  and 
that  is  all.  Good  men  must  be  chosen  to  run  the  machinery 
and  to  choose  good  men  the  people  must  sacrifice  time,  party 
prejudice,  and  personal  gain. 


JULIUS  QILBERTSON,  ATHEN>E 


The  great  forces  that  have  revolutionized  our  industrial  life 
are  rapidly  making  our  cities  the  controlling  factor  in  modern 
civilization.  The  educational  and  social  influences  of  city 
life  likewise  irresistibly  attract  our  rural  population.  The  in- 
evitable result  is  that  city  life  is  destined  to  be  the  lot  of  an 
ever  increasing  proportion  of  manjcind. 

CHART  I.— INCREASE  OF  URBAN  POPULATION. 


Year. 

Population. 

No.  of 
Cities 

Urban 
Population. 

Per  ct. 
Urban 

Per  cent. 

Increase 

of  Populat'n. 

Increase 

of 

Urban 

Popul'n. 

1790 

1800 

1810 

1820 

1830 

1840 

1850 

i860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1895 

3.929.214 
5.308,483 
7,229,881 
9,633,822 
12,866,020 

17.069,433 
23, 191,876 

31.443.321 
38,558,371 
50,155.783 
62,622,250 
72,000,000 

6 

6 

II 

13 
26 

44 
85 
144 
226 
286 
443 

131,472 
210,873 
356,920 

475.135 
864,501 

I . 435 . 994 
2,897,586 
5,072,256 
8,071,875 

11,318,547 
18,284,385 
25,000,000 

2.3 

3.0 

4.9 

4.9 

6.7 

8.5 

12.5 

16. 1 

20,9 

22.5 

29.0 

34.7 

35.10 
36.39 
33 .07 
33.55 
32.67 

35.87 
35.58 
22.63 
30.08 
24.86 
20.00 

62 
59 

75 
55 
60 

43 
57 
61 
70 
60 
70 

From  1 880-1 890,  as  shown  by  this  chart,  (chart  No.  i)  the 
population  of  the  United  States  increased  about  25  percent., 
while  in  the  same  period  the  urban  population  increased  66 
per  cent.  At  this  rate  the  number  of  people  in  our  cities  at 
the  present  time  must  be  over  25,000,000,  or  more  than  one- 
third  of  the  whole  population. 

Out  of  each  $100  contributed  by  the  taxpayers  of  the  cities, 
about  80  per  cent,  goes  to  the  city,  while  the  entire  burden 
of  the  county,  state  and  national  taxation  amounts  to  only  20 
per  cent.  The  city  debt  is  so  great  that  the  share  of  each  cit- 
izen is  nearly  ten  times  as  great  as  his  share  of  the  state  and 
national  debts. 


13 

With  these  facts  before  us,  we  can  better  appreciate  the 
great  importance  of  the  subject  we  are  to  discuss  this  even- 
ing. 

The  condition  of  municipal  governments,  in  America  to- 
day, justifies  the  most  serious  alarm.  Investigations  made 
during  the  past  few  years  have  revealed  a  degree  of  corrup- 
tion far  beyond  the  wildest  imaginings  of  the  most  pessimistic 
reformer;  franchises  worth  millions  of  dollars  are  voted  to  cor- 
porations without  a  cent  of  compensation  to  the  public;  enor- 
mous and  unnecessary  debts  are  contracted;  the  unbusiness- 
like organization  of  the  different  departments  results  in  the 
greatest  inefficiency  and  waste;  and  the  word  ''alderman"  has 
become  a  synonym  for  corruption. 

The  common  knowledge  and  observation  of  every  citizen 
makes  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  here  refer  to  specific  cases  of 
maladministration,  and  yet  the  hundreds  of  cases  of  extrava- 
gance and  corruption  in  city  administration  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  public  during  the  past  few  years  are  as  noth- 
ing compared  to  the  evils  not  brought  to  light,  but  which  the 
public  nevertheless  is  forced  to  endure.  Says  Pres.  Smart, 
of  the  Purdue  University:  "It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  a  dol- 
lar in  the  hands  of  a  municipal  government  has  no  greater 
purchasing  power  than  a  half  dollar  in  the  hands  of  a  private 
citizen."  Bryce  declares  our  cities  to  be:  "The  oneconspicious 
failure  of  American  institutions."  Says  Andrew  D.  White: 
"Without  the  slightest  exaggeration  we  may  assert  that  with 
but  a  few  exceptions  the  city  governments  of  the  United 
States  are  the  worst  in  Christendom,  the  most  inefficient,  the 
most  expensive,  the  most  corrupt."  This  also  was  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Citizen's  Association  of  Chicago  in  1891,  after 
an  extensive  investigation  of  the  condition  of  over  100  cities. 
That  there  is  an  evil  to  be  remedied,  no  student  of  city  gov- 
ernment will  deny.  Now  let  us  find  where  the  evil  lies,  its 
cause  and  remedy. 

A  good  city  government  depends  on  two  factors;  (i)  the 
efficiency  of  the  machinery  of  government,  and  (2)  the  man- 


14 

ner  and  spirit  in  which  that  machinery  is  administered.  It  is 
true  that  the  most  perfect  governmental  machinery  is  no  guar- 
antee of  good  government  unless  the  motives  of  the  officials 
are  good,  yet  it  is  likewise  true  that  cumbersome  and  compli- 
cated methods  of  administration,  such  as  exist  in  most  of  our 
cities  and  such  as  the  negative  defend  here  to-night,  are  sure 
to  bring  unsatisfactory  results.  They  prevent  ef^cient  ad- 
ministration and  by  dividing  responsibility  foster  wastefulness 
and  corruption.  The  administrative  organization  of  our  cities 
is  therefore  of  the  utmost  importance.  A  city  is,  above  all 
things,  a  business  corporation.  The  questions  of  streets, 
water,  sanitation,  safety,  etc.,  are  questions  of  business  and 
not  of  politics.  Even  now  under  the  present  system,  no  mat- 
ter how  bitter  may  have  been  the  strife  at  the  election,  when 
once  the  administration  is  organized  there  is  no  longer  a 
struggle  between  democrats  and  republicans,  but  a  struggle 
between  extravagance  and  economy,  between  expenditure 
and  retrenchment.  These  facts  being  true,  it  follows  that  in 
order  to  secure  the  best  results  in  administration  the  city 
should  be  organized  on  business  principles.  Organized  so  as 
to  secure  harmonious,  unified  and  responsible  administration. 
This  is  the  test  by  which  a  system  of  city  government  must 
be  judged.  The  chief  merit  of  our  system  is  that  it  is  a  bus- 
iness system.  The  chief  fault  of  the  prevailing  system  is  that 
by  being  unbusinesslike  it  leads  to  wastefulness,  mismanage- 
ment and  corruption. 

Among  the  English  speaking  people  there  are  three  more 
or  less  distinct  types  of  city  administration.  In  the  first  the 
common  council  is  the  all  important  body;  it  not  only  passes 
laws  and  ordinances,  but  carries  on  the  administrative  and 
executive  work  of  the  city  by  means  of  its  committees  and 
appointees.  This  is  the  English  system.  The  second  type 
is  the  board  or  commission  system.  Legislative  and  execu- 
tive functions  are  distributed  among  numerous  boards,  com- 
missions and  individuals.  Once  in  office  these  boards  are 
practically  independent  of  one  another  and  responsible  to  no 


15 

one.  This,  in  a  hundred  varied  forms,  is  the  prevailing  type 
of  city  government  in  the  United  States  to-day.  The  third 
type  separates  the  legislative  and  executive  functions  and 
makes  the  mayor  the  responsible  head.  This  is  called  the 
federal  plan,  and  is  the  system  we  advocate. 

The  three  great  defects  in  the  system  of  city  government 
now  prevalent  are:  (i.)  The  consolidation  of  legislative  and 
executive  functions  in  the  same  bodies,  for  example,  in  com- 
mittees of  the  council.  (2.)  The  distribution  of  the  execu- 
tive power  among  boards  and  individuals,  so  that  the  people 
are  unable  to  locate  responsibility  for  misgovernment  and  mis- 
management. (3.)  The  employment  of  subordinates  not  on 
account  of  their  experience  and  training,  but  on  account  of 
personal  and  political  favoritism. 

The  granting  of  executive  powers  to  the  alderman,  thus 
over-burdening  that  body  with  the  minor  details  of  the  city 
administration,  has  probably  been  the  most  important  factor 
in  the  deterioration  of  the  common  councils.  In  nearly  all 
the  large  cities  the  duties  of  an  alderman  are  so  exacting, 
that  if  properly  performed  they  consume  his  entire  time.  In 
America,  having  no  leisure  class,  the  result  has  been  that  the 
ofifice  of  alderman  instead  of  being  filled  by  men  of  intelli- 
gence and  business  ability,  is  occupied  by  men  of  a  very  low 
standard.  Says  the  Pennsylvania  commission:  "The  consol- 
idation of  executive  and  legislative  functions  in  the  commit- 
tees of  the  council  is  the  chief  cause  of  our   municipal  evils." 

The  distribution  of  the  executive  functions  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment among  separate  and  independent  boards,  has  been 
due  principally  to  two  facts:  (i)  the  distrust  of  the  common 
council,  and  (2)  the  delegation  by  an  over  burdened  council 
of  certain  powers  to  committees  which  finally  become  perma- 
nent. There  is  no  uniformity  in  the  manner  of  appointment 
of  these  boards.  Some  are  appointed  by  the  mayor;  some 
by  the  council;  some  are  elected  by  the  people;  while  still 
others  are  appointed  by  the  governor  of  the  state.  These 
boards,  possessed  of  both  legislative  and  executive  functions, 
inevitably  clash,  and   the   defect   of  the   system   becomes  ap- 


i6 

parent  in  the  impossibility  of  locating  responsibility.  For 
example,  in  the  city  of  Chicago  there  are  fifteen  independent 
governing  bodies,  besides  the  ordinary  departments  of  the 
city  government;  and  six  of  these  have  the  power  of  levying 
taxes  and  making  appropriations.  In  the  city  of  New  York, 
says  Andrew  H.  Green:  "There  are  eighty  boards  and  indi- 
viduals which  create  debt  independent  of  one  another."  Says 
Lispenard  Steward,  a  member  of  the  Fassett  Committee: 
"The  most  disastrous  results  in  New  York  city  government 
have  been  caused  by  a  division  of  responsibility."  This  com- 
plicated division  of  responsibility  is  found  in  nearly  every 
city.  For  example,  Denver  has  ten  boards,  Milwaukee  ten, 
Baltimore  eight,  Detroit  ten.  Denver,  St.  Louis,  Cincinnati, 
Boston,  and  many  other  cities  have  their  police  boards  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  of  the  state.  In  Detroit,  the  Board 
of  Health  is  appointed  by  the  governor.  In  Omaha  the  park 
commissioners  are  appointed  by  the  district  judges.  Then 
too  the  length  of  the  term  of  office  varies  greatly.  In  the 
city  of  Milwaukee,  the  head  of  the  board  of  health  holds 
office  for  four  years,  the  city  engineer  for  three,  the  members 
of  board  of  public  works  for  three,  park  commissioners  for 
four  years.  The  mayor  holds  office  for  but  two  years.  It 
is  therefore  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  control  men  who 
serve  for  a  longer  term. 

When  Mayor  Strong  entered  upon  his  duties  as  mayor  of 
New  York  city,  he  found  twenty-one  heads  of  departments, 
whom  he  could  not  remove.  And  had  they  not  been  legis- 
lated out  of  office  by  the  New  York  legislature,  it  would  have 
taken  three  successive  victories  by  the  reform  element,  before 
the  city  could  have  got  rid  of  the  corrupt  Tammany  officials. 
Says  Prof.  Thomas,  in  his  history  of  Baltimore:  "The  divis- 
ion of  city  administration  among  boards  is  contrary  to  correct 
principles  of  administration  as  well  as  to  good  rules  of  busi- 
ness management.  The  reason  is  obvious.  ^  ^  ^s-  The 
investigator  who  wishes  to  locate  any  piece  of  blameworthi- 
ness, when  government  is  carried  on  by  a  complicated  system 


17 

of  commissions,  will  wander  through  the  devious  mazes  of 
administrative  irresponsibility,  and  wander  in  vain."  Says 
Albert  Shaw:  **City  government  in  the  United  States  de- 
feats its  own  ends  by  its  checks  and  balances,  its  partition  of 
duty  and  responsibility,  and  its  grand  opportunity  for  the 
game  of  hide  and  seek."  Thus  we  see  the  chaotic  character 
of  our  city  governments.  The  mayor,  the  aldermen,  the 
committees  oi  the  council,  joint  standing  committees,  boards 
for  the  government  of  charities  and  health,  commissioners  of 
streets,  fire,  police,  w^ater,  etc.,  the  old  town  governments, 
which  still  survive  in  some  of  our  largest  cities,  like  Chicago, 
all  of  these  in  some  sense  executive,  all  operating  within  the 
same  limits  often  impeding  one  another,  rarely  consulting  one 
another,  each  jealous  of  any  interference  by  another,  all  with- 
out common  direction  or  common  responsibility.  City  gov- 
ernments are  primarily  business  corporations.  What  busi- 
ness man  would  divide  the  management  of  his  business  among 
a  score  of  conflicting  and  irresponsible  bodies.? 

In  place  of  this  system,  or  rather  lack  of  system,  we  pre- 
sent a  plan  which  makes  the  mayor  the  real  head  of  the  city. 
There  is  definite  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  officers. 
The  departments  are  as  few  and  as  well  concentrated  as  is 
consistent  with  the  duties  to  be  performed,  and  so  related  to 
one  another  through  the  mayor  that  unified,  harmonious,  eco- 
nomical and  responsible  administration  can  be  secured.  This 
plan  consolidates  the  numerous  governing  bodies  into  a  suf- 
ficent  number  of  departments,  and  separates  the  executive 
and  legislative  functions.  The  mayor,  who  is  elected  by  the 
people,  is  given  the  sole  power  of  appointment  and  removal 
of  the  heads  of  departments,  and  is  thereby  made  responsible 
for  all  the  administrative  and  executive  departments.  This 
in  brief,  is  the  federal  plan,  and  the  system  we  advocate  to- 
night. Its  two  main  characteristics  you  will  notice  are:  (i) 
It  separates  the  legislative  from  the  executive  functions;  and 
(2)  By  giving  the  mayor  the  power  of  appointment  and  re- 
moval of  the  head  of  departments,  it  makes  him  directly  re- 

2 — J.D. 


sponsible  to  the  people  for  the  proper  administration  of  the 
city. 

This  system  is  the  logical  outcome  of  positive  tendencies 
that  have  pervaded  American  municipal  life  for  the  past  fifty 
years.  It  is  the  system  toward  which  our  cities  are  rapidly 
moving-.  It  is  not  an  untried  system.  Our  plan  does  not  in- 
volve a  rigid,  iron-clad  form  of  government  for  every  city  in 
the  country.  The  number  of  departments  will  depend  on  the 
size  of  the  city  and  kind  of  work  that  the  city  undertakes. 
We  hold  to  the  two  vital  principles  of  government,  namely, 
the  concentration  of  responsibility  in  a  definite  head,  and  the 
complete  separation  of  the  legislative  and  the  executive 
branches  of  the  city.  Our  plan  does  not  reduce  the  council 
to  a  nonenity,  but  under  it  that  body  is  to  have  legislative 
powers  only.  Like  Congress,  and  the  state  legislature,  it  is  to 
direct,  not  execute. 

The  idea  of  a  strong  executive  is  in  line  with  our  munici- 
pal development.  The  committee  system,  as  it  existed  in 
England  in  the  17th  century,  became  the  model  of  our  origi- 
nal municipality.  Local  administration  was  centered  in  the 
council.  The  mayor  was  a  mere  figurehead.  Since  then  the 
development  has  been,  (i)  toward  the  concentration  of  power 
and  responsibility  in  the  mayor  and  the  executive  officers. 
In  Philadelphia,  for  example,  from  1701-1789  the  mayor  was 
chosen  by  the  council,  and  had  not  even  the  power  of  veto. 
He  remained  a  component  part  of  the  council  until  1796.  In 
1854  he  was  given  the  power  of  appointment.  Gradually 
more  power  was  granted  until  in  1887  the  mayor  was  made 
the  responsible  head  of  the  city  administration. 

Boston  received  its  charter  in  1822.  This  gave  the  mayor 
only  the  powers  of  a  police  magistrate.  From  1 829-1 885  all 
the  executive  work  was  directed  by  the  committees  of  the 
council.  In  1854  the  mayor  was  given  the  power  of  veto, and 
the  right  to  remove  appointive  officers.  The  charter  of  1885 
transferred  all  the  executive  powers  of  the  city  to  the  mayor 
and  prohibited  the  council  from  interfering  in  any  way  in  the 


conduct  of  the  executive  business.  In  1882,  Brooklyn  adopted 
the  federal  plan  of  city  government,  Cleveland  in  1891,  In- 
dianapolis 1893,  Fort  Wayne  in  1893,  Evansville  in  1893. 

The  following  cities  have,  during  the  past  year,  adopted 
practically  the  federal  plan:  Columbus,  Holyoke,  Elmira, 
Springfield,  Ohio,  Bridgeport,  Buffalo,  Binghampton,  Port- 
land, Ore.  We  have  examined  the  charter  of  every  city 
coming  within  the  limits  of  this  debate,  and  nearly  all  show 
a  tendency  to  give  the  mayor  more  power.  This  fact  is  also 
substantiated  by  letters  we  have  received  from  public  officials 
of  those  cities.  We  thus  see  that  the  whole  tendency  of  our 
municipal  development  is  in  the  direction  of  a  strong  execu- 
tive. That  this  tendency  is  recognized  and  approved  is  shown 
by  the  position  of  students  and  authorities  on  the  subject  of 
municipal  government.  The  Fassett  committee  appointed 
by  the  New  York  legislature  in  1891,  which  gave  the  most 
•comprehensive  report  ever  published  on  municipal  govern- 
ment in  the  United  States,  on  page  95  of  its  report  says: 
"There  is  no  reason  why  the  same  principles  of  marked  di- 
vision between  the  legislative  and  executive  functions  should 
not  be  applied  to  the  city  as  well  as  the  state."  Says  Grover 
Cleveland:  "If  the  chief  executive  is  to  be  held  respon- 
sible for  order  and  good  government,  he  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  find  in  divided  responsibility,  excuse  for  any  neglect 
of  the  best  interest  of  the  people."  Writes  Theodore  Roose- 
velt: "I  heartily  favor  your  side.  Speaking  with  a  practical 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  I  want  to  emphasize  the  need  of 
centralizing  responsibility."  Says  Judge  Dillon  in  his  work 
on  municipal  corporations:  "Experience  has  demonstrated 
with  us  the  necessity  of  granting  more  power  and  responsi- 
bility to  the  executive  head  of  our  municipal  institutions." 
The  principles  of  our  plan  have  been  advocated  by  the  fol- 
lowing commissions:  The  Pennsylvania  commission  of  1876, 
Fassett  commission,  Greater  New  York  commission,  commis- 
sions for  the  second  and  third  class  cities  of  the  state  of  New 
York,  New   Haven,  Lowell,  and    many  others.      Committees 


20 

have  been  appointed  during  the  past  year  to  revise  the  char- 
ters of  the  cities  of  Omaha,  Denver,  Toledo,  San  Francisco, 
Springfield,  Mass.,  Portland,  Me.,  Lawrence  and  Worcester; 
each  and  every  one  have  prepared  charters  making  the  mayor 
the  responsible  head  of  the  city.  The  charter  recommended 
by  the  National  Association  of  Good  Government  Clubs,  em- 
bodies the  principle  of  a  strong  executive,  and  the  separa- 
tion of  the  legislative  and  executive  functions.  Out  of  125 
letters  sent  to  the  boards  of  trade  and  civic  organizations,  we 
have  received  104  replies.  All  of  these,  with  the  exception 
of  two  comparatively  small  cities,  answered  that  the  federal 
plan  is  best  suited  for  the  government  of  their  respective 
cities.  Not  a  single  one  favored  the  granting  of  more  pow- 
ers to  the  common  council.  Students  and  authorities  on  the 
subject  of  municipal  government  in  this  country,  are  practi- 
cally unanimous  in  favor  of  the  principles  on  which  our  plan 
is  based.  Among  the  many  authorities  we  may  mention  Pres. 
Seth  Low  of  Columbia  college,  Simon  Sterne,  Judge  Dillon, 
Wm.  Evarts,  Prof.  E.  J.  James,  Franklin  MacVeagh,  James  C. 
Carter,  Fred  Grant  and  Prof.  H.  C.  Adams,  Theodore  Roose- 
velt, Grover  Cleveland  and  David  Dudley  Field. 

That  great  evils  exist  in  our  municipal  institutions,  must  be 
admitted;  these  evils  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  censurable 
characteristic  of  our  people,  but  must  be  attributed  to  the  ir- 
responsible, the  complicated,  and  unbusinesslike  system  un- 
der which  our  cities  have  operated.  We  have  attempted  to 
govern  our  large  and  rapidly  developing  cities  by  an  anti- 
quated form  of  government.  Our  cities  are  to-day  in  a  transi- 
tory stage,  and  are  going  through  the  same  process  of  evolu- 
tion as  the  early  state.  The  early  state  was  at  first  governed 
by  the  town  meeting  or  the  common  council  plan  of  govern- 
ment. As  wealth  and  population  multiplied,  this  plan  became 
inadequate,  and  the  democratic  states  almost  universally 
adopted  the  principle  of  the  separation  of  the  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive functions.  Villages  and  small  cities  of  the  past  cen- 
tury could   be  well  governed  by  the   archaic  plan.      But  now 


21 

we  have  reached  the  stage  where  the  city  is  of  such  great 
importance,  that  it  represents  more  wealth  and  population 
than  many  states  of  the  past  century.  With  this  growth,  the 
same  necessities  which  confronted  the  early  state,  now  con- 
fronts our  cities.  And  moreover,  so  far  as  our  cities  have 
gone  they  have  solved  the  problem  in  the  same  way  as  the 
early  state.  Bitter  experience  has  forced  them  to  seek  the 
same  remedy.  The  fact  that  every  important  change  in 
American  charters,  has  been  in  the  direction  of  a  strong  ex- 
ecutive, and  the  further  fact  that  students  and  authorities, 
who  are  best  able  to  judge,  are  practically  unanimous  in  fa- 
vor of  this  tendency,  prove  conclusively  that  the  city  of  the 
future  will  be  governed  by^  mayor  and  a  council,  the  first 
having  executive  powers,  the  second  having  legislative  pow- 
ers.     These  are  the  vital  principles  for  which  we  contend. 


F.  E.  COMPTON,  PHILOMATHIA 


The  government  of  the  larger  cities  of  the  United  States 
has  not  been  entirely  satisfactory.  This  fact  has  led  some 
of  the  less  hopeful  reformers  to  declare  that  representative 
government  in  our  municipalities  is  a  failure,  but  this  con- 
clusion is  not  warranted  and  follows  from  a  superficial  view. 
If  we  look  carefully  we  see  that  the  representaj:ive  system  in 
our  cities  is  not  a  failure,  but  rather  deserves  much  praise. 
The  system  has  had  to  contend  with  a  host  of  evil  conditions 
and  tendencies  and  still  in  spite  of  them  all  has  worked  fairly 
well.  As  President  Seth  Low,  of  Columbia  College,  says: 
"The  marvel  would  seem  to  be  not  so  much  that  American 
cities  are  criticisable  for  many  defects  but  rather  that  results 
so  great  have  been  achieved  in  so  short  a  time." 

The  evils  of  our  municipal  government  spring  from  many 
complex  causes.  Chief  among  these  causes  is  the  marvelous 
growth  of  our  cities.  "The  problem  in  America,"  says  Pres- 
ident Low,  "has  been  to  make  a  great  city  in  a  few  years 
out  of  nothing."  From  mere  villages  fifty  years  ago  New 
York,  Chicago,  Brooklyn  and  Philadelphia  have  each  come 
to  number  nearly  two  million  inhabitants,  while  other  cities 
have  grown  at  nearly  the  same  rate.  This  rapid  growth  ne- 
cessitated extensive  public  improvements.  In  a  few  years 
miles  upon  miles  of  new  streets  were  paved,  street  railway 
franchises  were  granted,  sewer,  gas  and  water  systems  estab- 
lished, parks  laid  out  and  improved  and  great  public  build- 
ings erected.  This  hasty  extension  of  public  works  was  nat- 
urally wasteful.  Here  was  laid  the  foundation  of  the  present 
municipal  debt,  and  here  was  the  opportunity  for  corrupt  poli- 
ticians to  fill  their  pockets  at  the  public  treasury.  Then  too, 
this  rapid  growth  made  it  impossible  to  forecast  the  future; 
great  public  buildings  were  scarcely  finished  before  they  were 
remodeled  and  enlarged,  sewer,  gas  and  water  systems  were 

[22] 


23 

constantly  extended;  everywhere  there  was  reconstruction 
and  expansion  to  meet  the  demands  of  our  ever  increasing 
population.  This  rapid  growth,  the  prime  cause  of  ineffi- 
cient government,  was  itself  the  result  of  a  large  foreign  im- 
migration. Much  of  this  immigration  was  undesirable  and 
brought  many  serious  evils  to  the  nation.  It  crowded  our 
cities  with  a  heterogeneous  population,  ignorant  of  our  insti- 
tutions, indifferent  to  the  public  welfare.  •  From  this  unde- 
sirable immigration  has  come  our  slums,  our  class  vote.  It 
made  ring  rule  possible.  Its  evil  effects  were  multiplied  by 
a  reckless  granting  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  Foreigners  with- 
out property,  without  knowledge  of  our  municipal  affairs, 
cast  their  ballots  in  every  city  election. 

These  causes,  the  rapid  growth  of  our  cities,  and  an  unde- 
sirable immigration,  in  themselves  show  why  our  municipal 
government  has  been  inefficient.  But  we  must  add  to  these, 
the  transitory  character  of  our  population.  Population  in 
America  has  moved  steadily  from  east  to  west,  Philadelphia, 
Chicago  and  St.  Louis  have  been  mere  stopping  places  in  this 
western  migration.  Foreigners  make  up  a  large  part  of  the 
population  of  our  cities,  and  their  brief  residence  of  a  year  or 
so,  cannat  but  result  in  lack  of  interest  in  the  cities'  welfare. 

Another  powerful  cause  of  poor  city  government  is  the  in- 
fluence of  the  saloon  and  municipal  monopolies.  The  saloon 
has  a  great  deal  to  lose  under  good  city  government  through 
the  enforcement  of  laws  regulating  the  sale  of  intoxicants. 
The  liquor  power  has  everywhere  been  active  in  the  control 
of  municipal  affairs.  "Of  the  one  thousand  and  seven  pri- 
maries held  in  New  York  City  in  1884,  633  were  held  in  liq- 
uor saloons."  Municipal  monopolies  too  have  much  to  gain 
by  poor  administration  and  so  take  an  active  part  in  poli- 
tics. 

These  causes  are  rendered  more  efficient  for  evil  by  the  fact 
that  the  American  people  have  little  administrative  knowl- 
edge. The  city  must  deal  with  intricate  problems,  political 
and  economic;  such  as  taxation,  regulation  of  natural  monop- 


24 

dies  and  charities.  Ten  years  ago  these  subjects  were  hardly 
even  taught  in  our  colleges.  People  were  ignorant  of  the 
principals  of  municipal  government,  incapable  of  distinguish- 
ing good  administration  from  bad.  To-day  every  body  is 
studying  municipal  questions  in  colleges  and  clubs  and  the 
next  decade  will  witness  a  mighty  change  in  municipal  affairs 
whatever  the  form  of  government  may  be. 

Again,  our  city  government  has  been  poor  because  of  the 
evil  union  of  national  and  municipal  politics.  '  Party  bosses 
owe  their  power  to  partisan  politics.  "Four-fifths  of 
the  electors,"  says  Mr.  Bryce,  ''give  little  thought  to  per- 
sonal qualifications  and  vote  the  straight  out  ticket."  The 
great  New  York  commission  of  1877,  on  municipal  govern- 
ment in  its  report  says:  "The  political  division  of  good  citi- 
izens  paralyzes  all  ordinary  effort  for  good  municipal  govern- 
ment." Says  James  C.  Carter,  President  of  the  National  Muni- 
cipal League:  "If  national  politics  could  be  excluded  from 
municipal  affairs  and  officers  elected  on  merit  the  municipal 
question  would  be  solved." 

Gentlemen,  the  rapid  growth  of  our  cities,  undesirable  im- 
migration, broad  suffrage,  transitory  character  of  our  popula- 
tion, intrusion  of  national  politics,  these  are  more  than  ade- 
quate causes  to  account  for  poor  city  government. 

But  there  is  still  another,  the  interference  of  state  legisla- 
ture in  city  affairs.  Selfish  politicians  in  the  legislatures  have 
encouraged  municipal  extravagance  which  the  people  were 
powerless  to  prevent  because  the  legislature  was  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  city  voter.  Besides  this,  not  a  session  of  any 
state  legislature  goes  by  without  a  change  in  the  charters  of 
our  large  cities.  The  New  York  commission  in  1877  gave 
state  interference  as  the  main  cause  of  poor  city  government. 
The  report  of  the  Fassett  Senate  committee  in  1890,  the  most 
scholarly  and  complete  report  ever  made  on  city  government, 
says:  "Your  committee  cannot  too  strongly  condemn  this 
interference  as  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  miscarriage  of 
the  local  administration."     State  interference  takes  the  <:j-ov- 


25 

ernment  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people  and  places  it  in  the 
lobby  of  the  legislature.  City  officers  have  been  appointed 
and  removed,  new  offices  created,  streets  paved,  public  build- 
ings erected  and  the  city  burdened  with  debt  to  gratify  the 
desire  of  state  politicians.  In  fact:  ''Frequent  legislation  has 
destroyed  all  local  self-government."  Said  James  W.  Pryor, 
secretary  of  the  City  Club  of  New  York,  in  an  interview:  "If 
we  could  have  for  ten  years  in  this  country  a  single  free  city 
of  a  million  inhabitants  we  should  hear  very  little  more  about 
the  hopeless  problem  of  municipal  government." 

There  is  still  another  cause  of  poor  city  government  that 
must  be  mentioned,  the  apathy  and  indifference  of  the  best 
citizens  to  municipal  government.  On  account  of  the  bad 
elements  in  city  politics,  the  absorbing  commercial  interests 
and  isolation  of  the  individual  in  cities,  a  large  number  of  peo- 
ple take  no  interest  in  the  government  of  our  municipalities. 
In  a  democracy  the  government  depends  upon  the  people  and 
the  problem  is  a  problem  of  arousing  the  people's  interest. 
Said  Prof.  Edmund  J.  James  in  a  personal  interview:  "We 
have  never  had  a  form  of  government  in  our  American  cities 
which  has  been  so  bad  that  if  every  citizen  would  do  his  duty 
we  could  not  have  obtained  good  results." 

The  concentration  of  power  has  not  aroused  the  peoples' 
interest,  and  has  failed  as  a  measure  of  reform.  The  way  to 
arouse  civic  pride  is  not  by  a  change  of  charters  but  by  edu- 
cation, education  through  reform  associations  and  the  study 
of  municipal  government. 

Thus  far  I  have  shown  that  the  evils  of  our  cities  lie  not  in 
our  form  of  government  but  in  social  and  moral  conditions, 
quite  apart  from  the  form,  which  conditions  must  be  changed 
before  better  government  can  be  hoped  for.  Yet  the  affirma- 
tive ignore  these  fundamental  causes  when  they  ask  you  to 
adopt  a  radical  change  in  our  municipal  system  and  thus  de- 
clare representative  government  in  our  cities  a  failure.  They 
propose  to  give  to  one  man  not  only  all  executive  and  ad- 
ministrative but  many  legislative  powers.       In  fact,  they  ask 


26 

you  to  take  a  step  backward  in  the  evolution  of  government 
and  in  place  of  our  representative  system  establish  a  system 
of  municipal  Caesarism.  A  system  that  at  most  can  only  be 
advocated  as  a  temporary  measure,  a  war  measure,  but  even 
as  a  war  measure  the  system  cannot  remove  the  fundamental 
evils  of  our  city  government;  but  in  many  respects  indeed 
would  aggravate  them.  Then  to  advocate  such  a  scheme  as 
a  permanent  system  is  absurd. 

We,  on  the  other  hand,  gentlemen,  advocate  measures  of 
reform  that  will  remove  these  fundamental  causes  that  I  have 
mentioned. 

To  prevent  the  evil  union  of  national  and  municipal  poli- 
tics we  advocate  the  entire  separation  of  municipal  from  state 
and  national  elections. 

To  prevent  legislative  interference  and  charter  tinkering 
we  advocate  local  self-government  for  all  cities,  so  that  th^ 
voters  of  the  cities  can  control  municipal  affairs. 

We  advocate  the  strict  enforcement  of  our  naturalization 
laws  and  the  improvement  of  our  primaries,  so  that  they  will 
attract  and  not  repel  our  best  citizens. 

To  remove  the  evils  of  the  spoils  system  we  advocate  the 
appointment  of  subordinate  officers  under  civil  service  rules, 
enforced  by  a  board  of  non-partisan  civil  service  commis- 
sioners. 

These  measures  of  reform  are  exactly  the  measures  pro- 
posed by  the  national  municipal  league,  by  all  the  good  gov- 
ernment clubs  in  the  United  States,  advocated  by  every  stu- 
dent of  municipal  government  and  have  brought  most  beneficial 
results  wherever  they  have  been  in  operation.  We  recognize 
that  such  causes  as  the  indifference  of  citizens, and  lack  of 
administrative  knowledge  can  only  be  remedied  by  education 
and  agitation.  These  two  forces  have  already  greatly  im- 
proved our  city  government.  We  recognize  that  other  causes, 
as  rapid  growth,  immigration  and  transitory  population,  are 
gradually  passing  away  and  the  condition  of  our  cities  is 
steadily  improving. 


27 

So  with  the  enforcement  of  the  reforms  I  have  mentioned 
no  reason  can  be  urged  for  a  change  of  our  municipal  system, 
but  even  were  a  change  of  system  desirable  the  radical  scheme 
advocated  by  the  affirmative  can  not  remedy  but  will  only  in- 
crease our  municipal  ills. 

The  system  of  the  affirmative  throws  immense  power  into 
the  hands  of  the  mayor  by  giving  him  control  of  the  municipal 
patronage.  But  the  affirmative  argue  that  this  patronage 
will  be  removed  by  the  appointment  of  subordinates  under 
civil  service  rules.  The  temptation  under  their  system,  how- 
ever, for  one  man  to  gain  control  of  all  appointments  has 
been  so  great,  that  without  a  single  exception,  the  rules  of 
the  charter  have  been  completely  disregarded  in  every  city 
where  their  system  has  been  tried.  In  a  personal  interview 
with  Prof.  Edmund  J.  James,  formerly  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  he  said:  "In  Philadelphia  subordinates  are 
appointed  and  removed  in  the  same  manner  as  provided  in 
your  question,  but  this  power  has  been  greatly  abused,  the 
spoils  system  is  as  bad  or  worse  to-day  than  before  the  rules 
were  adopted."  In  New  York  city,  under  a  system  similar 
to  the  affirmative,  the  rules  have  been  disregarded  in  the 
same  manner.  The  senate  committee  reports  as  follows: 
"In  New  York  city  the  officers  are  still  almost  without  ex- 
ception from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  the  prizes  of  political 
life  and  the  rewards  of  party  service."  In  Brooklyn  where 
the  system  of  concentration  has  had  a  most  thorough  trial 
the  results  have  been  the  same.  Under  eight  years  of  sue- 
sive  administrations,  the  civil  service  rules  were  entirely 
ignored,  and  the  spoils  system  reigned  supreme.  In  Indian- 
apolis the  civil  service  rules  would,  if  enforced,  exclude  all 
political  reasons  for  appointment  in  the  city  service.  But 
every  mayor  since  the  adoption  of  the  centralized  charter  has 
utterly  disregarded  these  rules.  The  city  charter  was  so 
recklessly  violated  that  a  special  commission  was  appointed 
to  examine  the  civil  service  of  Indianapolis,  and  reported  as 
follows:     "Large   numbers  of   employees  have  been  removed 


28 

and  others  appointed  without  the  slightest  regard  either  to 
the  rules  or  the  charter."  "The  best  interests  of  the  city  are 
being  disregarded  for  the  benefit  of  personal  and  partisan 
consideration."  This,  under  a  system  exactly  like  the  affirm- 
ative in  the  city  of  churches  and  homes,  where  conditions  are 
almost  ideal  for  the  perfect  operation  of  these  rules. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  the  practical  working  of  the  affirma- 
tive's theories.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  civil  service  rules 
should  break  down  under  their  system  when  we  observe  that 
subordinates  are  appointed  by  the  heads  of  departments  who 
are  dependent  upon  the  mayor  for  their  position.  These 
heads  of  departments  then,  being  subservient  to  the  mayor 
would  be  strongly  tempted  to  use  these  rules  for  partisan 
purposes. 

So  we  see  that  civil  service  rules  under  a  concentrated  sys- 
tem cannot  prevent  the  mayor  from  building  up  a  strong  po- 
litical machine. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  point  of  locating  responsibility. 
The  affirmative  urge  that  under  their  system  they  will  have 
responsibility  located  in  the  mayor.  But,  gentlemen,  they 
still  retain  the  council  and  give  this  council  joint  powers  with 
the  mayor,  so,  in  accord  with  their  own  theory,  divide  the  re- 
sponsibility in  government.  While  the  idea  of  located  respon- 
sibility may  sound  well  in  theory,  in  practice  it  has  proven 
most  unsatisfactory.  Located  responsibility  goes  for  nothing 
if  it  does  not  move  the  people  to  action.  It  means  nothing 
if  it  does  not  remove  corruption  from  municipal  government. 
And,  gentlemen,  here  the  system  of  the  affirmative  has  ig- 
nominiously  failed.  We  have  just  seen  how  located  respon- 
sibility has  failed  to  prevent  the  greatest  abuse  of  the  civil 
service  rules.  In  addition  to  this,  experience  teaches  that  so- 
called  located  responsibility  has  not  prevented  the  most  cor- 
rupt mayors  from  being  elected,  has  not  prevented  these  same 
men  from  being  re-elected,  or  from  being  succeeded  by  mayors 
equally  as  bad  or  even  worse.  In  an  interview  with  Hon. 
A.  K.  McClure,    editor-in-chief  of   the   Philadelphia    Times, 


29 

he  said:  "The  theory  of  responsibility  may  be  sound,  but 
the  practice  is  decidedly  weak.  Our  present  system  has 
proved  a  great  power  for  harm.  We  have  not  been  able  to 
elect  a  good  mayor  since  the  centralized  charter  of  1887  was 
adopted."  If  located  responsibility  means  anything  why  was 
it  that  under  the  afilirmative  system  in  Brooklyn  the  people 
re-elected  Mayor  Chapin  after  one  of  the  most  corrupt  and 
extravagant  administrations  in  the  history  of  the  city.?  Lo- 
cated responsibility  goes  for  nothing  if  the  people  turn  down 
one  corrupt  mayor  and  elect  a  worse  one  in  his  place.  Yet 
this  has  been  the  experience  in  Brooklyn,  New  York  and  In- 
dianapolis, where  the  system  of  the  affirmative  is  in  opera- 
tion. 

Our  poor  city  government  is  not  due  to  a  lack  of  located 
responsibility,  but  to  the  indifference  of  the  people.  In  every 
city  it  is  known  that  the  mayor  is  responsible  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  all  city  ordinances,  such  as  the  regulation  of  the  sa- 
loon and  gambling  houses,  yet  the  people  do  not  hold  the 
mayor  responsible.  There  is  hardly  a  city  in  the  country 
where  the  mayor  is  doing  his  duty  in  regard  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  these  laws. 

When  brought  to  the  test  of  experience  their  system  has 
failed  in  the  very  respect  where  it  seems  theoretically  perfect. 
Not  only  has  the  system  failed  in  the  United  States  but  the 
idea  of  concentrating  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man  has  never 
found  acceptance  in  any  of  the  European  cities.  In  England, 
Germany,  France,  Scotland,  Canada  and  other  foreign  coun- 
tries the  council  has  been  given  full  power  in  municipal  gov- 
ernment and  these  countries  have  achieved  wonderful  success 
in  the  control  of  their  cities.  While  there  are  slight  differ- 
ences in  conditions  between  foreign  countries  and  the  United 
States,  we  must  remember  that  the  work  of  cities  the  world 
over  is  the  same.  As  Ex-Mayor  Mathews,  of  Boston,  an  ad- 
verse witness  in  our  case,  says:  "It  must  be  conceded  that 
the  common  argument  that  most  of  the  city's  work  should  be 
vested  in  an  executive  officer,  is  refuted  by  the  experience  of 


30 

foreign  cities."  Even  the  affirmative  must  admit  that  if  there 
is  any  inherent  weakness  in  the  council  system  it  would  have 
shown  itself  in  the  many  foreign  countries  where  it  has  not  been 
in  practical  operation.  Especially  as  it  has  operated  in  many 
different  countries  under  entirely  different  conditions.  Eng- 
land has  a  set  of  conditions  different  from  those  in  France, 
Germany  from  those  in  Scotland  and  Scotland  from  those  in 
Canada.  Yet  the  council  has  been  eminentl)^  successful  in  all 
of  them.  In  spite  of  this  fact  the  affirmative  claim  that  our 
poor  city  government  is  due  to  our  system  of  government  by 
the  council.  To  maintain  this  proposition  they  must  disregard 
the  fundamental  causes  that  I  have  mentioned,  and  they  must 
explain  why  city  government  in  the  United  States  has  shown 
such  a  marked  improvement  wherever  these  causes  have  been 
removed.  When  they  have  done  this  they  must  show  why  the 
council  has  worked  so  successfully  not  only  in  all  foreign  cit- 
ies, but  in  many  cities  in  the  United  States.  In  Minneapo- 
lis, Atlanta,  Nashville,  Springfield,  Mass.,  and  many  other 
cities  they  have  the  council  with  large  powers  and  the  people 
are  well  satisfied  with  the  government.  Says  Hon.  Robert 
Pratt,  of  Minneapolis:  "The  system  under  which  we  are 
chartered  is  known  as  council  government.  I  prefer  it  in 
many  respects  to  the  one  you  are  discussing."  Says  Julian 
Ralph,  a  student  of  municipal  government:  "The  govern- 
ment t)f  Minneapolis  is  certainly  a  success."  Said  A.  S.  Col- 
lier, in  an  article  on  Nashville:  "The  business  of  the  city  is  as 
well  conducted  as  a  bank."  Says  Mr.  Kennedy,  of  Memphis: 
"The  system  of  government  of  Memphis  is  excellent."  Hon. 
W.  W.  Mershon,  of  Saginaw,  in  an  article  "in  Municipality 
and  County,"  said:  "We  think  we  have  a  model  city  charter." 
Writes  Hon.  Mark  Hubble,  of  Buffalo:  "Our  city  govern- 
ment is  most  satisfactory."  Said  A.  H.  Davis,  of  Atlanta, 
at  the  recent  good  government  conference  at  Baltimore: 
"Our  charter  works  well.  It  seems  admirably  adapted  to 
our  local  needs.  Under  our  present  charter  for  twenty-two 
years  the   city  has  never  lost  by  "misappropriation  or  embez- 


31 

zlement  of  its  funds."  Said  Geo.  A.  Denison  at  the  same 
conference:  "Springfield  has  never  been  ruled  by  a  ring. 
When  departure  from  the  path  of  municipal  rectitude  has  oc- 
curred the  people  have  been  swift  to  rebuke  them  and  to  turn 
the  careless  servants  out  of  office." 

In  other  cities  with  the  same  system  good  government  has 
not  been  as  satisfactory,  which  shows  conclusively  that  char- 
ter is  not  the  cause  of  poor  city  government. 

We  must  conclude,  gentlemen,  that  the  evils  of  our  city 
government  are  due  to  social  and  political  conditions  such  as 
rapid  growth  of  our  cities,  foreign  immigration,  broad  suf- 
frage, transitory  character  of  our  population,  confusion  of  na- 
tional and  local  politics,  poor  primaries,  the  spoils  system, 
interference  of  state  legislatures,  and  the  apathy  and  indiffer- 
ence of  the  better  classes  in  our  cities. 

We  must  conclude  that  the  only  remedy  for  corrupt  city 
government  is  the  removal  of  these  fundamental  causes. 

We  must  conclude  that  the  concentration  of  power  in  one 
man  does  not  strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  is  there'fore 
superficial  and  ineffective. 

We  must  conclude  that  such  a  system  would  lead  a  corrupt 
man  to  abuse  the  civil  service  and  charter,  through  his  ambi- 
tion to  gain  political  power,  as  the  experience  of  Indianapolis 
and  Brooklyn  has  shown. 

We  have  seen  that  located  responsibility  in  practice  has 
utterly  refuted  the  theoretical  claims  for  such  a  scheme. 

We  must  conclude  that  when  the  spoils  system  has  been 
removed  from  our  cities  by  civil  service  reform,  when  we  have 
better  primaries,  when  voters  divide  on  the  line  of  good  or 
bad  city  government,  instead  of  tariff  or  currency,  and  when 
there  is  an  enlightened  civic  interest,  such  a  radical  change 
will  be  unnecessary.  Until  many  of  these  changes  occur  such 
a  radical  change  would  be  ineffective  if  not  vicious. 

We  have  every  reason  to  be  encouraged  from  the  stride 
municipal  reform  has  made  the  last  few  years.      Municipal  re- 


32 

form   movements   have  centered  the  people's  interest  on  the 
necessity  of  good  city  government. 

We  have  certainly  passed  the  period  of  great  municipal  in- 
efficiency, and  the  tendency  in  all,  cities  is  steadily  toward 
improvement. 


J.  W.  PAGE,  ATHENyE 


Our  opponents  have  admitted  the  evils  of  our  municipal 
governments,  but  they  have  sought  to  attribute  them  to 
causes  that  cannot  be  changed  by  the  form  of  government,  to 
the  saloon,  immigration,  state  interference,  etc.  How  would 
they  remedy  the  evils  they  admit?  Does  the  present  plan  of 
dealing  with  the  saloon  in  Milwaukee,  where  each  alderman 
practically  has  the -granting  of  the  licenses,  suit  them  better 
than  the  plan  we  propose?  Their  plan  makes  it  necessary  for 
the  saloons  to  control  the  alderman. 

The  evils  they  have  pointed  out  are  evils   indeed  but  what 
remedies  have  they  proposed?     A  single  city  cannot  prohibit 
immigration,  nor  even  legislative  interference.      The  remedies 
they  propose  are  not  practical,  they  are  extensive  not  inten- 
sive.     How  can   the   reforms  they  hint  at  be  accomplished? 
On  the  other  hand  our  plan  is  tried  and  practical  and  in  every 
city  where   it   has   been   adopted    we  will   show  you    that  a 
marked  improvement  has  taken  place.      The  reforms  the  neg- 
ative have  mentioned,  impossible  of  accomplishment,  are  de- , 
signed  to  conceal  the   evils  which   the  negative  admit  exist. 
Gentlemen,  our  opponents  have  admitted  our  cause  of  action 
and  to  win  this  debate  must   propose   a  better  plan  than  we 
advocate.      This  is  the  only  logical  conclusion  from  their  ad- 
missions but  we  apprehend  from  the  tenor  of  the  gentlemen's 
debate  that  by  a  general  admission  of  poor  city  government, 
and  a  denial  of  specific  charges  they,  in  the  face   of  astound- 
ing instances  of  misgovernment  and  corruption  will  take  the 
position  that  present  conditions  do  not  warrant  a  change.      In 
taking  this  position   they  place    themselves  in   opposition   to 
every  student  of  the   question   and  every  investigating  com- 
mittee, and  I  ask  your   indulgence  while   I   mention   a  few  of 
the  hundreds  of  cases  of  corruption  that  have  led  such  men  as 
James  C.  Carter  to   declare  that,   "Our  city  governments  il- 
3-JD.  [33] 


34 

lustrate  every  form  of  public  disgrace."  I  need  not  recall  the 
notorious  Broadway  scandal  in  New  York  in  which  a  street 
railway  franchise  was  corruptly  passed  over  the  mayor's  veto, 
investigation  of  which  showed  that  all  but  two  of  the  twenty- 
four  aldermen  were  implicated  in  the  corrupt  deal.  Nor 
rveed  I  mention  the  infamous  Gas  Ring,  which  for  more  than 
thirty  years  controlled  the  patronage  and  elections  in  Phil- 
adelphia, and  robbed  the  city  of  millions  of  dollars  annually. 
Only  last  year  the  Tennessee  Bar  Association  reported  that 
property  in  the  cities  of  that  state  was  being  abandoned  be- 
cause of  the  deplorable  condition  of  the  city  governments. 
And  this  state  contains  one  of  the  cities  whose  government 
they  have  spoken  of  so  highly. 

During  the  past  thirty  years  the  debts  of  lOO  of  our  larg- 
est cities  have  increased  $400,000,000,  and  there  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  to  show  where  more  fhan  half  this  outlay  has 
gone.  Take  for  example  the  city  of  New  York  where  the 
debt  increased  $41,000,000  between  1890  and  1895,  o^  Eliza- 
beth City  where  the  indebtedness  all  accumulated  during  the 
last  few  years,  for  street  improvements  at  exorbitant  rates,, 
equals  one-fourth  of  the  valuation  of  all  property  in  the  city. 
Still  the  gentlemen  tell  us  our  cities  are  not  badly  adminis- 
tered. 

Two  years  ago  a  law  was  passed  in  Missouri  compelling 
the  sate  of  franchises.  The  day  before  the  law  went  into 
effect,  the  Kansas  City  common  council  in  forty-five  minutes 
granted  to  private  companies  thirteen  franchises  valued  at 
over  $6,500,000,  and  for  which  the  city  did  not  receive  a 
cent.  The  council  of  Omaha  last  year  attempted  to  grant  an 
exclusive  franchise  for  fifty  years  to  supply  the  city  with 
water  and  gas  at  exorbitant  rates;  the  mayor  by  his  veta 
secured  concessions  worth  more  than  a  million  dollars.  In 
1895  eleven  of  the  thirty-three  New  Orleans  aldermen  were 
indicted  and  three  sent  to  prison  for  corrupt  franchise  deals. 
I  might  give  hundreds  of  instances  but  no  one  doubts  the 
part  played   by   corruption  and   bribery  in   the   granting   of 


35 

franchises.  An  investigation  by  the  Toledo  Board  of  Trade 
showed  that  the  city  had  been  robbed  of  more  than  $i,ooo,  - 
ooo.  Cincinnati  is  to-day  so  completely  under  the  control  of 
one  independent  and  irresponsible  boss,  that  no  ordinance  is 
passed  or  officer  elected  without  his  approval.  Without  a 
visible  income  this  man  has  built  a  palatial  home.  Last 
August  in  the  city  of  Memphis  an  alderman  was  sent  to 
prison  for  soliciting  bribes.  In  the  city  of  Lowell  another 
boodle  alderman  was  convicted  in  November.  To-night  in 
Des  Moines  boodle  money  belonging  to  a  gas  company  is  held 
in  a  bank. 

If  more  instances  of  corruption  are  necessary  the  record  of 
a  single  week  last  month  is  as  conclusive  as  it  is  disgraceful. 
In  New  York,  Mayor  Strong  by  his  veto  of  a  corrupt  fran- 
chise ordinance  saved  the  city  $10,000,000.  In  Omaha  the 
city  engineer's  department  was  being  investigated  because  of 
inefficiency  and  corruption.  In  Chicago,  John  M.  Harlan, 
son  of  Justice  Harlan  of  the  supreme  court,  in  a  public  meet- 
ing declared  that  every  committee  of  the  city  council  is  con- 
trolled by  aldermen  whose  votes  are  for  sale;  that  the  Calu- 
met franchise  cost  the  company  $100,000  corruption  money. 
William  Giles  estimates  that  more  than  $4,000,000  has  been 
paid  to  the  council  directly  during  the  past  eight  years.  In 
that  city,  Martin  B.  Madden,  an  irresponsible  alderman,  has 
been  for  six  years  the  acknowledged  boss  of  the  council,  dic- 
tating its  policy,  having  charge  of  all  contracts  and  control- 
ling the  expenditure  of  over  $15,000,000  per  annum.  Nor 
is  this  all,  during  the  same  week  the  investigations  of 
a  grand  jury  in  Minneapolis  revealed  the  fact  that  a  majority 
of  the  aldermen  have  been  systematicall}/  robbing  that  city. 
They  have  demanded  and  received  a  regular  percentage  on 
the  contracts  which  they  have  let,  amounting  it  is  believed  to 
ten  per  cent,  of  the  city's  total  expenditures.  They  have 
levied  assessments  on  every  man  whom  they  have  appointed 
to  a  city  position,  and  from  this  source  received  $30,000  a 
year.  The  grand  jury  is  still  in  session,  and  what  their  in- 
vestigation will  reveal  is  not  known,  but  already  some  indict- 


36 

ments  have  been  returned,  and  enough  is  now  known  to  con- 
demn Minneapolis  as  one  of  the  most  corruptly  governed 
cities  in  the  country.  This  kind  of  municipal  corruption,  not 
unusual  in  our  cities,  is  attracting  widespread  attention  because 
Minneapolis  has  been  constantly  pointed  to  as  the  model  city 
by  those  who  advocate  the  council  form  of  government. 

Such  is  the  record  for  a  single  week  of  the  system  defended 
by  the  negative,  and  the  instances  that  I  have  given  are  only 
a  few  of  the  thousands  of  known  cases  of  corruption,  and 
there  are  doubtless  thousands  that  have  not  been  discovered. 
The  gentleman  has  referred  to  Springfield  as  a  well  governed 
city.  Does  he  not  know  that  the  mayor  in  his  last  message 
condemned  Springfield's  system  of  committee  government, 
and  said  that  economy  of  administration  could  not  be  secured 
under  it.? 

Nor  do  these  facts  indicate  the  full  extent  of  the  evils  in 
our  city  affairs.  In  addition  to  the  amounts  taken  directly 
from  the  city,  far  greater  sums  are  annually  raised  by  assess- 
ments on  employees,  saloons,  gambling  houses,  large  corpora- 
tions and  business  concerns.  It  is  estimated  that  $3,000,000 
are  thus  raised  annually  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Many  of 
these  facts  were  revealed  by  the  Lexow  investigating  com- 
mittee, and  what  has  been  proven  of  conditions  in  New  York 
is  known  to  exist  in  almost  every  city  in  the  country  in  one 
form  or  another.  In  Chicago,  for  example,  by  taking  bribes 
for  low  assessments  it  is  known  that  each  assessor  derives  as 
large  an  income  from  his  position  as  the  salary  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  The  money  raised  by  these  black- 
mailing schemes  keeps  the  ward  heeler  in  line,  enables  the 
boss  to  rule  our  cities,  and  elects  corrupt  men  to  the  council. 

My  time  is  too  limited  to  permit  the  mention  of  more  spe- 
cific cases  of  corruption,  but  the  instances  I  have  mentioned 
are  typical.  Surely  the  gentlemen  will  not  longer  attempt  to 
maintain  that  we  have  no  cause  for  action,  that  the  condition 
of  our  city  governments  does  not  warrant  a  change. 

This  deplorable  condition  of  our  cities  my  colleague  has 
shown  you  is  due  to  the  failure  to  separate  legislative  and  ex- 


37 

ecutive  functions  and  to  the  division  of  executive  and  adminis- 
trative powers  among  numerous  independent  boards,  commit- 
tees and  individuals.  It  is  evident  that  some  change  must  be 
made  in  the  form  of  government  of  our  cities.  The  plan  we  ad- 
vocate brings  system  out  of  this  chaos.  It  separates  the  legis- 
lative and  executive  departments  and  confines  each  within  its 
clearly  defined  sphere.  It  abolishes  the  numerous  administra- 
tive and  executive  boards  and  places  all  the  executive  power 
in  an  executive  department,  which  consists  of  the  mayor  and 
the  heads  of  departments,  who  are  appointed  by  him  and  re- 
sponsible to  him.  Under  these  heads  of  departments  are  the 
great  body  of  subordinates  all  of  whom  are  appointed  in  ac- 
cordance with  civil  service  rules  and  responsible  to  the  head 
of  their  respective  department.  This  plan  gives  each  officer 
his  work  to  do  and  for  which  he  alone  is  responsible.  The 
work  of  each  department  is  clearly  defined.  The  mayor  is 
made  the  controlling  and  responsible  head  of  the  whole  ad- 
ministration. He  can  call  to  account  any  careless  or  corrupt 
ofiicial  and  the  people  will  hold  the  mayor  personally  respon- 
sible if  he  fails  to  correct  any  abuses  in  the  government  of  the 
city. 

Our  cities  are  concerned  to  a  much  greater  degree  than 
our  national  and  state  governments  with  business  ques- 
tions. The  functions  of  the  executive  department  are  purely 
those  of  business.  The  erection  of  buildings,  the  cleaning 
and  paving  of  streets,  the  disposal  of  sewage,  the  manage- 
ment of  water  and  lighting  plants,  the  making  of  contracts, 
all  are  questions  of  business,  and  to  be  managed  successfully 
must  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  principles  that  are 
essential  to  the  successful  management  of  any  private  enter- 
prise. 

The  problems  arising  from  the  rapid  growth  of  our  urban 
population  as  well  as  the  constant  tendency  to  extend  the 
sphere  of  municipal  activity  by  assuming  the  ownership  and 
control  of  natural  monopolies,  make  the  application  of  busi- 
ness principles  to  the  management  of  the  business  affairs  of 
our  cities  an  absolute  necessity. 


38 

The  first  essential  for  the  successful  management  of  any 
-corporation,  public  or  private,  is  a  strong,  efficient,  and  re- 
sponsible head,  who  has  the  power  to  carry  out  a  continuous 
and  consistent  policy.  This  is  especially  true  where  the 
business  is  so  varied  and  complicated  as  is  that  of  our  modern 
cities.  One  president  is  better  than  three  receivers,  one 
capable  and  responsible  head  better  than  any  committee 
of  the  council.  With  the  heads  of  departments  that  are  inde- 
pendent or  only  responsible  to  the  council,  which  like  all 
bodies  composed  of  many  members,  must  be  vacillating-  and 
hesitating,  there  can  be  no  common  purpose,  no  continuous 
policy,  no  unity  of  administration.  For  these  are  qualities 
which  can  only  be  secured  when  as  under  our  system  there  is  a 
single  executive  head,  with  full  power  to  act  under  strict  re- 
sponsibility. How  long  would  a  private  corporation  keep  from 
bankruptcy  if  its  business  was  parcelled  out  to  committees  of 
the  stockholders,  each  independent  of  the  other  and  with  no 
common  policy  and  no  responsible  head.?  Yet  this  is  the 
condition  of  affairs  which  must  exist  in  our  cities  as  long  as 
executive  and  administrative  powers  are  parcelled  out  among 
numerous  independent  boards  and  committees.  A  policy 
more  certain  to  bring  about  extravagance  and  mis-govern- 
ment in  city  affairs  could  not  be  devised. 

As  has  been  shown  our  plan  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  the 
abuses  in  city  government,  by  separating  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive functions  and  by  fixing  responsibility.  To  the  coun- 
cil we  give  all  legislative  powers,  to  the  executive  all  the 
administrative  and  executive  work.  The  executive  de- 
partment has  absolute  charge  of  tne  constructson  of  improve- 
ments, the  management  of  city  property  and  the  making 
of  contracts.  There  are,  however,  certain  quasi-con- 
tracts like  the  granting  of  licenses  and  franchises  which 
involve  questions  of  public  policy  and  should  be  submitted 
to  the  council,  in  order  that  the  executive  department  shall 
not  encroach  upon  the  functions  of  that  body. 

One  of  the  disastrous  results  of  the  system  of  government 


39 

under  which  most  of  our  cities  are  suffering  is  that  so  few 
offices  are  filled  by  the  better  class  of  citizens. 

The  average  alderman  is  a  man  of  low  moral  character,  lit- 
tle education  and  no  business  training.  The  members  of  the 
executive  boards  and  commissions  are  but  little  better.  It  is 
the  opinion  of  boards  of  trade  and  civic  organizations  with 
whom  we  have  corresponded  that  from  50  to  75  per  cent,  of 
the  alderman  in  cities  coming  within  the  limits  of  this  debate 
are  unfit  for  office.  Yet  many  of  the  gravest  problems  that 
confront  the  American  people  are  connected  with  our  cities. 
The  reason  why  to-day  they  do  not  secure  able  men  as  offi- 
cers is  that  there  is  little  in  city  office  to  attract  good  men, 
for  they  find  themselves  handicapped  at  every  turn  by  the 
complicated  system  of  divided  powers  and  responsibility.  On 
the  other  hand  this  system  attracts  venal  and  inefficient  men 
by  offering  every  opportunity  to  conceal  mismanagement  and 
corruption.  To  secure  efficient  city  officials  the  system  of 
city  government  must  be  so  changed  that  city  offices  will  be 
such  positions  of  power  and  honor,  that  they  will  not  only 
offer  opportunity  for  men  of  ability  to  exercise  their  talents 
but  that  they  will  appeal  to  all  that  is  best  in  such  men. 
Wherever  these  changes  have  been  effected  there  has  been  a 
most  marked  improvement  in  the  character  of  the  city  offi- 
cials. When  Brooklyn  adopted  our  system,  Pres.  Seth  Low 
was  glad  to  accept  the  office  of  mayor  of  that  city.  When 
New  York  made  the  offices  of  police  and  of  street  cleaning 
commissioners  places  of  power  and  responsibility,  Theodore 
Roosevelt  resigned  his  position  as  member  of  the  national 
civil  service  commission  to  become  police  commissioner,  and 
the  city  secured  Col.  Waring,  the  foremost  sanitary  engineer 
in  America,  for  street  cleaning  commissioner.  Thus  when 
our  system  is  in  general  operation  it  will  be  that  everywhere 
men  of  character  and  ability  will  find  in  city  offices  a  field  for 
the  exercise  of  their  talents  and  the  very  best  men  will  seek 
these  positions. 

The  fact  that  the  mayor's  office  is  made    one   of   great  im- 


40 

portance  is  not  the  only  assurance  that  we  will  secure  efficient 
mayors.  The  people,  knowing  that  the  success  of  the  city 
administration  will  depend  on  securing  an  honest  and  able 
man  for  mayor,  will  take  greater  interest  in  elections  and  de- 
vote more  attention  to  city  affairs.  At  the  present  time  the 
responsibility  for  the  city  administration  is  distributed  among 
a  large  number  of  offices  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  the 
voters  to  inform  themselves  of  the  character  and  records  of 
the  numerous,  comparatively  obscure  candidates  for  these  po- 
sitions. Moreover,  the  power  of  the  ballot  is  so  diffused  that 
no  thorough  and  permanent  reform  can  be  obtained.  It  is 
therefore  no  wonder  that  interest  in  municipal  elections  has 
been  constantly  decreasing  until  now  in  many  of  our  cities 
from  25  to  40  per  cent,  of  the  voters  fail  to  vote.  And  it  is 
well  known  that  the  voters  who  stay  away  from  the  polls  are 
the  better  class  of  our  people.  This  condition  alone  would 
justify  a  change.  The  adoption  of  our  plan  which  concen- 
trates the  interest  of  the  voters  an  the  choice  of  one  man  and 
enables  the  people  to  accomplish  their  purpose  at  a  single 
election,  has  been  followed  in  every  instance  by  increased  in- 
terest in  city  primaries  and  elections.  The  results  are  strik- 
ingly shown  by  these  charts. 

The  line  in  each  chart  shows  the  time  our  plan  was 
adopted.  The  number  of  votes  cast  for  mayor  is  shown 
and  compared  with  the  population  and  the  vote  cast  for 
governor  wherever  reliable  figures  can  be  obtained.  In 
each  case  showing  that  under  our  plan  the  votes  cast  for 
mayor  increased  much  faster  than  either  the  population 
or  the  vote  for  governor.  The  comparison  with  the  vote 
cast  for  president  is  not  given  for  that  but  illustrates  in  a 
greater  degree,  the  principle  of  the  federal  plan  that  where 
interest  is  centered  in  the  election  of  one  man  more  people 
do  their  duty  at  the  polls. 


Chart  no.  2 — FoRiSii^YNg;:^ 

Population.      Vote  for  Mayor.  '    ^^^  .        ~ 

^  ^  sented  by  a  vote. 

1890  35,393        6,247 

1892  37>78Q        5>45i 6.9 

1894  45,679        8,546 

1896        48,750  8,977  5-4 

1892- 1896. — Increase  in  population  29  per  cent. 
1 892-1 896. — Increase  in  votes  for  mayor  64  per  cent. 
In  Fort  Wayne  prior  to  the  adoption  of  our  plan  each  vote 

represented  6.9  people  now  each  vote  represents    only  5.4  or 

in  other  words  while  the  population  has  increased  29  per  cent. 

the  number  of  votes   cast   for   mayor  has   increased   64   per 

cent. 

Chart  no.  3 — Indianapolis. 

Population.      Vote  for  Mayor.  ..   ?  ,  ^ 

^  ^  sented  by  a  vote. 

^^^7         97,332  20,700 

1889       119,346  20,873  5.7 

1891  1.33,020       22,568 

1893  144,000       28,715 

1895  149,355  31,751  4-7 
1889-1895. — Increase  in  population  25  per  cent. 
1889-1895. — Increase  in  votes  for  mayor  52  per   cent. 

In  Indianapolis  the  same  improvement  is  shown,  the  num- 
ber of  people  represented  by  each  vote  has  decreased  from 
5.7  to  4.7.  This  city  now  showing  the  greatest  proportion 
of  actual  voters  to  the  population  of  any  city  in  the  country. 
While  the  population  has  increased  25  per  cent,  since  the 
change  in  the  form  of  government  the  votes  cast  for  mayor 
have  increased  more  than  50  per  cent.     • 

Chart  No.  4. — Cleveland. 

Popula-  Governor  Mayor  No.  of  persons  rep- 

tion.               Vote.  Vote.  resented  by  a  vote. 

1887  239,229  30,397  25,298 

1889         261,708         39,345  31,333  8.3 

1991  299,475  48,429         34,190 

1893         322,932         44,122         37,7^7 
1895         352,629         43,712         45,909  7'^ 


42 

1889-1895- — Increase  in  population,  34  per  cent. 

1889-1895. — Increase  in  votes  for  governor,  8  per  cent. 

1 889-1 895. — Increase  in  votes  for  mayor,  43  per  cent. 

The  same  improvement  is  shown  in  Cleveland.  The  num- 
ber of  persons  represented  by  each  vote  the  last  year  under 
the  old  system  was  8.3,  in  1895  the  number  was  but  ^.6. 
From  1889  to  1895  the  population  increased  34  per  cent.,  and 
while  the  vote  for  governor  only  increased  8  per  cent.,  the 
vote  for  mayor  increased  43  per  cent. 

Chart  No.  5. — Brooklyn 

Governor  Vote.  Mayor  Vote. 

1881 

1882.. 

1883 

1885 

1887 

1888 

1889 

1891 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1 880-1890. — Increase  in  population,  42  per  cent. 

1881-1891. — Increase  in  vote  for  mayor,  68  per  cent. 

1881-1895. — Increase  in  vote  for  mayor,  95  per  cent. 

In  Brooklyn  the  vote  cast  for  mayor  at  the  last  election  ex- 
ceeded the  highest  vote  ever  cast  for  governor  by  more  than 
8,000  votes.  We  have  not  been  able  to  secure  the  popula- 
tion for  each  year,  but  while  the  population  increased  42  per 
cent,  between  1 880-1890  the  vote  for  mayor  between  1881  and 
1 891  increased  68  percent,  or 95  percent,  between  1881  and 
1895. 


86,721 

U^,  «jv^3 

98,562 

100,302 

100,560 

118,450 

116,328 

124,951 

147,920 

146,304 

166,717 

162,897 

170,992 

1872 

1873 
1875 
1877 
1878 
i88i 
1882 
1884 
1886 


UIMIVtKSn  Y 

OF 
£lLIFORHy^ 


43 


Chart  No.  6 — Philadelphia. 


Governor  Vote. 
118, 119 

113,889 

127,219 

146,950 

153,955 


Mayor  Vote. 


94,237 
109,261 

121,413 
150,643 
149,669 


1887 152,663 

1890 191,952  

1 891 179,628 

1894 192,464  

1895 214,742 

1 886-1 894 — Increase  in  vote  for  governor  25  per  cent. 

1 887-1 895 — Increase  in  vote  for  mayor  39  per  cent. 

Likewise  in  Philadelphia  the  vote  cast  for  mayor  at  the 
last  election  exceeded  the  largest  vote  ever  cast  for  governor 
by  more  than  22,000  votes,  and  while  the  vote  cast  for  gov- 
ernor increased  25  per  cent,  between  1886  and  1894,  the 
vote  for  mayor  between  1887  and  1895,  an  equal  period,  in- 
creased more  than  39  per  cent. 


Chart 

No. 

7. — Boston. 

Total  number 

of  votes  cast. 

Nov.  Election 

Dec.  Election 

Larger  number 

for  Governor. 

for  Mayor. 

of  Votes  for 

1875.. 

. .     27,380 

27,116 

Gov. 

1876.. 

•     43,795 

30,663 

Gov. 

1877.. 

•.      34,213 

47,988 

Mayor. 

1878.. 

. .     47, 890 

38,141 

Gov. 

1879.. 

■•      43,437 

35,555 

Gov. 

1880.. 

.      53,396 

41,654 

Gov. 

1881.. 

.      29,219 

40,170 

Mayor. 

1882.. 

•      47,734 

41,288 

Gov. 

1883.. 

.      58,443 

53,444 

Gov. 

1884.. 

.      58,748 

51,662 

Gov. 

44 


44,682 

Mayor. 

45,66; 

Mayor. 

5i,820 

Mayor. 

63.548 

Gov. 

56,877 

Mayor. 

54,254 

Mayor. 

55,018 

Gov. 

66,667 

Gov. 

68,228 

Gov. 

68,588 

Mayor. 

76,721 

Mayor. 

1885....  41,683 
1886. .  . .  45,467 
1887....    49,423 

1888..  ..   64,923  R.  and  Pr.  year 
1889....   52,478  R. 
1890....   54,088  R. 

1891 60,986  R. 

1892 ....      73,616  R.  and  Pr.  year 
1893....      70,715  R. 
1894. ...      66,214  R. 
1895  •  •  •  •      66,916 

Number  of  persons  represented  by  one  vote: 

1885—8.7  1880-1885— 8.7 

1895 — 6.4  1890-1895 — 7.2 

Turning  now  to  the  chart  on  Boston  where  the  elections 
for  governor  are  held  in  November  and  the  municipal  elec- 
tions are  held  one  month  later  and  where  on  this  account  you 
would  expect  to  find  a  small  vote  cast  for  municipal  officers 
we  see  that  while  during  the  ten  years  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  our  plan  the  vote  for  governor  exceeded  the  vote  for  mayor 
in  all  but  two  years,  that  in  the  eleven  years  since  the  condi- 
tions have  been  reversed  and  the  mayor's  vote  has  exceeded 
the  vote  for  governor  in  all  but  four  years,  two  of  these  being 
years  in  which  presidential  election  took  place  and  all  occur- 
ring during  the  years  when  Wm.  E.  Russell,  the  idol  of  the 
people,  of  Massachusetts,  as  candidate  for  governor,  was  ask- 
ing for  their  votes.  Moreover  since  the  adoption  of  our  plan 
the  number  of  people  represented  by  each  vote  has  been  re- 
duced from  8.7  in  1885  to  6.4  in  1895,  or  taking  five  year 
periods  1880  to  1885  and  1 890  to  1895  the  reduction  has  been 
from  8.7  to  7.2  showing  a  remarkable  increase  of  interest  in 
city  elections. 

Students  of  municipal  government  everywhere  are  united 
in  declaring  that  the  first  essential  to  a  reform  of  city  govern- 
ment is  a  more  active  interest  of  the  people  in  city  elections. 
They  declare  that  if  the  people  will  only  attend  the  primaries 
and  elections  the  problem  of  city  government  will  be  solved. 
These  charts  show  that,  without  exception,  wherever  our  plan 


45 

has  been  adopted  the  tendency  to  neglect  municipal  affairs 
has  not  only  been  stayed  but  that  an  ever  increasing  number 
of  people  now  attend  the  primaries  and  the  polls,  thus  insur- 
ing a  higher  grade  of  officials  and  better  municipal  govern- 
ment. 

Still  another  reason  why  our  plan  secures  better  men  is 
that  the  incentive  for  corrupt  men  to  seek  office  is  removed. 
Responsibility  for  every  act  is  fixed  and  the  detection  and 
punishment  of  the  careless  or  criminal  exercise  of  official 
powers  is  made  certain.  Under  such  conditions  a  public  po- 
sition has  no  attractions  for  men  whose  only  object  in  seek- 
ing office  is  to  dishonestly  enrich  themselves.  Any  man, 
when  responsibility  is  fastened  upon  him,  fears  public  criti- 
cism and  respects  public  opinion.  Thus  we  see  that  by  mak- 
ing it  unprofitable  for  corrupt  men  to  seek  office,  by  increas- 
ing the  interest  of  the  people  in  city  affairs,  and  by  making 
the  office  of  mayor  a  position  of  honor  and  responsibility,  we 
insure  the  election  of  able  men  of  character  as  mayors. 

The  negative  will  argue  that  our  system  will  allow  the 
mayor  to  build  up  a  political  machine.  No  political  machine 
can  be  established  without  having  a  large  number  of  offices  at 
the  disposal  of  the  boss.  Our  plan  by  placing  all  the  subor- 
dinate positions  under  strict  civil  service  rules,  making  ability 
and  experience  the  criterion  for  oflfice,  removes  the  very  basis 
upon  which  a  political  machine  is  built.  Ward  heelers  and 
politicians  have  no  interest  in  a  man  who  cannot  reward  them.^ 
The  seven  or  eight  offices  at  the  disposal  of  the  mayor  would 
be  a  source  of  weakness  rather  than  of  strength  if  he  should 
attempt  to  build 'up  a  machine;  for  the  number  of  enemies 
made  by  these  appointments  would  be  far  greater  than  the 
number  of  friends  gained.  Moreover,  under  our  plan  the 
mayor  is  held  directly  responsible  and  it  is  to  his  personal  in- 
terest to  administer  the  government  efficiently  and  economi- 
cally thereby  securing  the  good  will  of  the  public.  Any  at- 
tempt to  abuse  the  powers  of  his  official  position  will  surely 
bring  upon  him  the  condemnation  of   the   people.       The  ex- 


A 


46 

perience  of  those  cities  that  have  adopted  the  principles  of 
our  plan  but  which  do  not  choose  their  subordinates  under 
civil  service  rules,  shows  that  even  in  those  cities,  every  at- 
tempt of  the  mayor  to  maintain  himself  in  office  through  the 
power  of  a  political  machine  has  met  with  disastrous  defeat. 
By  placing  subordinates  under  civil  service  rules  and  by  fix- 
ing responsibility  for  the  administration  directly  on  the  mayor, 
the  plan  we  advocate,  eliminates  all  danger  of  a  political  ma- 
chine. 

I  have  shown  how  under  our  plan  by  increasing  the  powers 
of  the  mayor  we  obtain  men  of  good  character  and  ability  for 
that  position.  Good  mayors  will  secure  able  heads  of  depart- 
ments. Under  the  present  system,  where  many  officers  are 
elected,  the  tickets  are  made  up  by  compromises  between  the 
different  factions  and  classes.  Under  these  conditions,  says 
Judge  Story:  "The  nominations  have  little  to  do  with  the 
fitness  of  the  candidates." 

When  the  appointments  are  made  by  the  mayor  and  con- 
firmed by  the  council  the  result  is  no  better,  for  all  responsi- 
sibility  for  the  character  of  the  men  appointed  is  destroyed. 
The  aldermen  say  they  confirmed  the  best  man  the  mayor 
would  appoint,  the  mayor  replies  that  he  appointed  the  best 
man  the  council  would  confirm.  In  nearly  every  city  the 
aldermen  have  abused  the  power  of  confirmation.  They 
have  cfippled  the  executive  force  for  months  by'refusing  to 
confirm  the  mayor's  appointments  and  have  often  compelled 
the  appointment  of  men  totally  unfit  for  office.  Under  our 
system  the  mayor  cannot  escape  the  responsibility  for  the 
character  of  his  appointees.  Moreover  it  is  to  the  mayor's 
personal  advantage  to  appoint  able  and  experienced  men;  for 
the  success  of  his  administration  depends,  in  large  measure, 
upon  the  character  of  his  appointments.  Heads  of  depart- 
ments are  places  of  importance  and  honor  and  their  salaries 
are  sufficient  to  attract  men  of  ability.  Men  of  good  business 
reputation  will  accept  a  position  from  the  mayor  when  they 
would  refuse  to  run  the  risk  of  being  rejected  by  the  council. 


47 

or  defeated  at  the  polls.  By  giving  the  mayor  the  absolute 
power  of  appointment  and  removal  we  secure  the  best  possi- 
ble men  for  heads  of  departments,  harmony  between  the  de- 
partments and  unity  of  administration. 

Our  plan  provides  all  necessary  safeguards  to  protect  the 
city.  The  executive  department  can  not  expend  any  money 
nor  make  a  single  contract  until  an  appropriation  is  made  by 
the  council.  The  council  can  raise  money  and  direct  its  ex- 
penditure, but  can  not  pay  out  a  single  cent.  The  treasurer 
and  comptroller  who  have  charge  of  the  city  funds  are  wholly 
independent  of  the  mayor.  These  officers,  though  not  con- 
trolled by  the  mayor,  can  not  in  any  way  obstruct  the  admin- 
istration of  the  city  affairs,  but  their  independence  enables 
them  to  prevent  the  squandering  of  the  public  money  by  pre- 
venting the  falsification  of  the  accounts. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  the  business-like  organization  of  the 
business  departments  of  the  city  government  for  which  we 
ask  your  approval  to-night. 

Under  our  system  the  common  council  may  or  may  not  be 
organized  as  it  is  to-day.  In  this  discussion  we  are  not  con- 
cerned with  the  legislative  functions  of  the  city;  for  the  ques- 
tion expressly  limits  the  range  of  our  inquiry  to  the  proper 
drsposal  of  the  administrative  and  executive  functions.  But 
in  closing  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  one  of 
the  first  results  of  relieving  the  council  of  the  executive  work 
with  its  mass  of  details,  is  an  improvement  in  the  character 
of  the  council  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  performs  its 
duties.  The  time  required  of  an  alderman  is  greatly  short- 
ened, and  busy  men  can  serve  in  the  council.  As  I  have 
already  shown  the  opportunity  for  corruption  is  taken  away. 
Relieved  of  the  stigma  now  attached  to  the  word  ''alderman," 
better  men  will  enter  the  council.  The  council  having  only 
important  legislative  questions  to  decide,  is  able  to  consider 
each  matter  carefully  and  perform  its  duties  more  efficiently. 
Being  deprived  of  the  power  to  spend  money,  and  at  the 
same  time  being  held  responsible  by  the  people  for  the  rate 
of  taxation,  the  council  naturally  becomes  a  conservative  part 


48 

of  the  city  government.  Our  plan,  therefore,  not  only  im- 
proves the  executive  department,  but  likewise  the  legislative 
department  of  the  city. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury:  I  have  presented  the  theory  upon 
which  the  federal  plan  of  city  government  is  based.  Its  two 
main  characteristics  are  that  it  separates  the  functions  of  gov- 
ernment and  fixes  responsibility  for  every  act.  In  place  of 
the  present  heterogeneous,  chaotic  and  unbusinesslike  systems, 
which  have  made  our  city  governments  a  disgrace  to  the 
country,  we  have  presented  a  system  characterized  by  sim- 
plicity, harmony  and  unity;  a  system  adapted  to  our  Ameri- 
can conditions  and  modeled  after  our  national  government. 
This  system  by  giving  the  mayor  full  control  of  the  executive 
department  makes  the  position  one  of  power  and  dignity,  at- 
tractive to  our  best  men.  The  people  know  that  the  admin- 
istration depends  upon  the  character  of  the  mayor  and  being 
able  to  use  their  power  directly  and  efficiently  are  aroused  to 
greater  interest  in  city  affairs  and  city  elections.  This  in- 
sures the  selection  of  prominent,  able  and  honest  men  as 
mayors.  The  mayor  knowing  that  he  is  held  responsible  for 
the  administration;  that  his  reputation  will  largely  depend 
upon  the  character  of  his  appointees,  will  be  careful  to  choose 
only  able  and  experienced  men  as  heads  of  departments.  Our 
plan  therefore  insures  honest  and  efficient  mayors,  capable 
heads  of  departments,  trained  and  experienced  subordinates, 
thus  securing  the  highest  degree  of  administrative  efficiency. 
In  short,  our  system  intensifies  interest  in  city  affairs,  secures 
good  officials,  gives  them  power  to  act  and  fixes  responsi- 
bility. 


GEO.  B.  NELSON,  PHILOMATHIA 


The  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  have  repeatedly  asserted 
that  a  city  is  simply  a  large  business  corporation.  Upon  this 
assumption,  they  would  introduce  their  system,  claiming  the 
while  that  the  system  which  they  propose  is  an  exact  model 
of  a  business  corporation.  Now,  gentlemen,  attractive  as  is 
such  a  comparison  it  is  nevertheless  a  great  and  popular  fal- 
lacy. In  the  first  place  a  city  is  not  a  business  corporation 
but  a  body  politic.  The  many  court  decisions  affirm  the 
truth  of  this  statement.  In  the  second  place  the  functions, 
aims,  and  objects  of  a  city  differ  widely  from  those  of  a  busi- 
ness corporation.  The  one  exists  to  provide  for  the  health, 
safety,  comfort,  education  and  pleasure  of  its  people,  while 
the  other  exists  primarily  to  declare  as  large  dividends  as 
possible  for  its  stockholders.  The  one  exists  to  spend  money 
the  other  to  make  money. 

But  even  granting  that  a  city  is  a  business  corporation,  the 
system  proposed  by  the  affirmative  does  not  give  us  a  system 
whose  practical  workings  are  analogous  to  those  of  a  business 
corporation.  Instead  of  being  elected  by  the  whole  mass  of 
the  people,  in  the  heat  of  a  campaign,  the  head  of  a  business 
corporation  is  chosen  by  interested  and  enlightened  stock- 
holders in  the  quiet  of  a  committee  room.  Instead  of  being 
elected  for  a  short  term  of  years,  the  president  of  a  business 
corporation  holds  his  position  for  life,  while  his  heads  of  de- 
partments hold  their  positions  because  of  special  merit  and 
never  because  they  are  friends  or  political  supporters  of  the 
president.  Instead  of  owing  allegiance  to  any  ring  or  politi- 
cal party,  the  head  of  a  corporation  is  directly  responsible  to 
a  board  of  directors.  If  the  affirmative  demand  a  business 
organization,  they  must  return  to  a  strong  council,  and  have 
the  mayor  chosen  by  this  council.  It  is  no  wonder  the  af- 
firmative's unbusinesslike  system  has  not  given  good  results. 
4— J.D.  [49] 


so 

The  gentlemen  further  claim  that  both  charter  commissions, 
which  were  appointed  by  the  governor  of  the  state  of  New 
York,  to  formulate  general  charters  for  the  second  and  third 
class  cities,  have  reported  in  favor  of  concentrated  systems. 
This  is  true,  but  gentlemen  they  have  not  brought  forth  a 
single  statement  from  any  of  these  commissioners,  to  show 
that  they  favored  the  system  proposed  here  to-night.  On  the 
other  hand  we  of  the  negative  have  corresponded  with  sever- 
al of  these  commissioners  and  have  received  replies  which  jus- 
tify our  position  here  to-night.  Hon.  Robert  Earl,  chairman 
of  the  commission  for  second  class  cities,  writes  of  the  affirma- 
tive's scheme — "It  is  too  broad.  All  executive  and  adminis- 
trative power  should  not  be  concentrated  in  the  mayor." 
Arthur  L.  Andrews,  another  member  of  this  same  commis- 
sion, writes:  *  *  ^  "In  my  humble  judgment,  the  affirm- 
ative of  the  question  and  interpretation  is  not  the  best  sys- 
tem for  any  city.  *  *  *  i  think  there  are  grave  dangers 
attending  the  increase  of  power  of  a  mayor,  and  I  think  there 
is  a  reaction  of  sentiment  among  municipal  reformers  on  this 
question." 

From  members  on  the  third  class  commission  we  have  re- 
ceived similar  replies.  F.  W.  Holls,  of  New  York  city,  in  an- 
swer to  the  question — Is  the  affirmative  the  best  permanent 
system  for  cities,  writes:    "Decidedly  no!" 

Hannibal  Smith,  a  second  member,  upholds  our  general 
position  when  he  says:  "The  proposition  in  your  letter  grants 
too  great  powers  to  the  mayor." 

Gentlemen,  can  our  opponents  still  claim  that  these  com- 
missioners unanimously  advocate  their  system.'* 

In  spite  of  the  numerous  self-evident  causes  of  poor  city 
government  which  my  colleague  cited,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  many  cities  enjoy  good  government  under  charters  which 
are  entirely  different,  the  affirmative  still  maintain  that  char- 
ter is  all-important  in  municipal  government.  But,  gentle- 
men, even  granting  for  the  moment  that  they  have  shown 
municipal   government    in   the    United  States  unsatisfactory, 


51 

and  that  the  charter  is  the  cause  of  poor  city  government, 
even  then,  they  have  but  taken  the  first  step  in  the  proof  of 
their  proposition.  They  must  yet  show  that  a  system  of  ex- 
treme concentration  is  the  remedy. 

They  ask  you  to-night  to  adopt  a  system  which  rests  fund- 
amentally upon  two  great  assumptions — first,  that  our  coun- 
cils are  to-day  hopelessly  corrupt,  incapable  of  improvement; 
and,  second,  that  under  existing  moral  and  political  conditions 
the  people  of  our  large  municipalities  will  always  elect  an 
honest  and  capable  mayor.  The  weakness  and  inconsistency 
of  any  argument  based  upon  such  assumptions  must  be  at 
once  apparent.  Because  both  mayor  and  council  are  the  pro- 
duct of  the  same  conditions,  both  are  elected  by  the  same 
electors,  and  both  are  responsible  to  the  same  constituency. 
Could  they  prove  that  under  present  conditions  the  people 
would  invariably  elect  an  honest  and  capable  mayor,  they 
would  overcome  the  first  great  obstacle  to  the  adoption  of 
their  system. 

But  the  election  of  a  capable  mayor  would  be  most  diffi- 
cult. It  would  be  almost  impossible  to  find  a  man  who  could 
rigidly  enforce  the  laws,  efficiently  supervise  the  various  de- 
partments, examine  the  terms  of  all  contracts,  and  could  then 
have  sufficient  time  to  consider  private  rights  and  public 
needs  in  the  granting  of  franchises  and  the  making  of  innum- 
erable estimates.  I  say,  to  find  such  a  man  would  be  indeed 
most  difficult,  if  not  impossible.  Says  Dr.  Ely:  "The  suc- 
cessful mayor  under  such  a  system  must  understand  adminis- 
tration, finance,  sanitation,  education,  etc.,  etc.,  in  order  to 
properly  guide  the  different  branches  of  municipal  govern- 
rnent,  and  this  kind  of  a, mayor  will  rarely  be  found." 

But  granted  that  there  are  men  capable  of  efficiently  exer- 
cising all  these  powers,  will  such  men  really  be  recognizable 
among  the  vast  throng  of  office  seekers.?  Will  they  accept 
the  position.?  If  so,  will  they  be  nominated  and  elected.? 
Experience  with  such  a  system  answers  No!  In  the  first 
place,  honorable  jurors,  our   ablest  and  best  men  are  not  to- 


52 

day  available  for  positions  in  city  governments,  exposed  to 
hostile  partisan  criticism,  uncertain  as  to  election  and  still 
more  uncertain  as  to  tenure  of  office;  lured  by  the  equally 
honorable  and  much  more  lucrative  positions  in  the  great  cor- 
porations, the  able  man,  the  man  of  great  executive  capacity, 
is  reluctant  to  have  his  name  go  before  apolitical  convention. 
But  the  affirmative  say  that  this  system  of  great  powers  and 
responsibilities  will  attract  the  superior  men.  I  answer  that 
such  powers  will  likewise  attract  political  bosses.  They  will 
move  heaven  and  earth  to  control  such  positions,  for  the  con- 
trol of  them  means  the  control  of  the  city  government. 

Writes  Edmund  Kelly,  an  active  reformer  of  New  York 
city:  ''The  plan  proposed  is  one  grateful  to  politicians,  be- 
cause under  this  plan,  all  the  machine  has  to  do  is  to  concen- 
trate its  energies  upon  the  election  of  mayor — a  thing  which 
it  does  with  uniform  success,  except  under  conditions  of  un- 
usual excitement."  But,  gentlemen,  this  prize  would  be 
sought  not  only  by  machine  politicians,  but  the  saloon  power 
would  make  every  endeavor  to  elect  a  man  obedient  to  its 
will.  Worthy  jurors,  you  must  concede  that  the  election  of 
a  poor  mayor  is  possible,  nay,  extremely  probable.  Unor- 
ganized for  municipal  welfare,  divided  along  partisan  lines, 
good  citizens  in  the  heat  of  a  campaign  may  easily  make  a 
mistake,  and  such  mistakes  have  been  unfortunately  too  com- 
mon in  practice.  But  the  success  of  this  system  depends 
upon  the  election  of  a  good  man.  For  although  several  mis- 
takes may  be  made  in  the  election  of  aldermen  and  the  con- 
trol of  the  council  still  be  left  in  good  hands,  yet  one  mistake 
in  the  selection  of  the  mayor  is  fatal  to  the  mayor  govern- 
ment. 

But,  gentlemen,  grant  that  a  well  meaning  man  is  elected 
mayor.  What  happens.^*  No  sooner  is  he  inaugurated  than 
he  is  literally  besieged  by  office  seekers,  by  contract  and  fran- 
chise jobbers.  Not  only  this,  he  is  visited  by  the  local  boss 
and  party  managers,  who  demand  the  adoption  of  certain 
policies  or  certain  measures  for  the  party  good.  True,  the 
mayor  can  resist  if  he  will.      But  to  quote  the  words  of  Her- 


53 

bert  Welch,  in  a  personal  interview:  "The  pressure  brought 
to  bear  upon  an  honest  and  well  meaning  man  is  simply 
enormous  and  very  few  are  strong  enough  to  withstand  the 
demands  of  the  boss."  Such  was  the  case  with  mayors  Whit- 
ney, Chapin  and  Boody  in  Brooklyn — all  under  the  affirmative 
system.  Gentlemen,  if  the  mayor  is  a  politician  he  will 
surely  not  resist,  because  he  has  been  elected  by  a  certain 
party,  and  to  disregard  the  demands  of  that  party  is  to  be 
ungrateful  to  those  who  elected  him.  If  he  is  weak  or  inca- 
pable he  will  soon  be  dominated  by  the  boss,  and  the  worst 
type  of  city  government  will  follow. 

Such  a  system  is  not  government.  It  is  dictatorship  in 
municipal  affairs.  It  is  a  system  which  makes  a  clean  sweep 
for  good  government  possible,  but  gives  no  assurance  of  its 
continuance,  nor  does  it  prevent  an  entire  overthrow  of  set- 
tled policies,  nor  a  return  to  the  worst  of  governments  that 
moment  the  people  fail  to  elect  a  faithful,  honest  and  capable 
mayor.  You  can  hold  your  mayor  responsible  and  dismiss  a 
bad  mayor  at  the  end  of  his  term  of  office,  but  you  have  not 
solved  the  problem  of  good  government,  until  you  have  made 
certain,  that  his  successor  will  not  possess  the  same  qualities 
that  caused  his  dismissal. 

But  though  the  election  of  a  good  mayor  is  assured,  this 
system  even  then,  has  an  inherent  weakness — successive  ad- 
ministrations are  not  continuous,  but  revolutionary.  Not 
only  is  the, mayor  changed  frequently,  but  with  him  the  en- 
tire corps  of  heads  of  departments.  This  has  been  the  in- 
variable rule  in  Cleveland,  Philadelphia  and  also  in  Brooklyn, 
except  during  the  period  when  that  city  was  dominated  by 
the  famous  Whitney,  Chapin,  Boody  regime.  Under  this 
system  no  continuity  of  policy  is  possible,  and  waste,  ineffi- 
ciency and  extravagance  must  result  from  such  a  practice. 

But,  worthy  jurors,  the  important  question  is — how  has 
such  a  system  worked  in  practice.^  Brooklyn's  experience 
gives  ample  evidence  to  support  every  charge  we  have  made 
against  this  system.      In  1881  the  people  of  Brooklyn  elected 


54 

their  first  mayor  under  the  new  charter.  They  fortunately 
struck  upon  Mr.  Low — an  ideal  man  for  the  position — edu- 
cated and  intelligent,  strong  in  character,  firm  of  purpose,  he 
gave  to  the  people  of  Brooklyn  a  clean  administration.  But 
he  was  not  appreciated  and  was  barely  elected  for  a  second 
term.  At  the  end  of  his  term  of  ofifice,  concentration  was 
pronounced  a  success,  but  the  people  did  not  stop  to  think 
that  it  was  Mr.  Low,  and  not  the  new  city  charter  that  made 
the  city  government.  They  did  not  stop  to  think  that  they 
could  not  elect  a  Low  every  time. 

Mr.  Whitney,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Low,  in  his  letter  ac- 
cepting the  nomination,  sneered  at  the  principles  of  civil  ser- 
vice reform,  and  thus  at  once  conclusively  proved  his  unfit- 
ness for  the  position.  Unheard  of  as  a  candidate,  he  came 
forth  as  boss  McLaughlin's  nominee  and  was  elected.  Said 
E.  L.  Godkin  shortly  after  his  election:  "The  dummy  was 
elected  and  his  administration  is  already  justifying  the  ma- 
chine's confidence  in  him."  All  the  heads  of  departments 
who  had  been  so  wisely  selected  by  Mr.  Low  were  replaced 
by  men  noted  more  for  partisan  activity  than  for  business 
qualifications.  The  civil  service  rules  were  evaded  and  cor- 
ruption was  everywhere  rampant.  "In  short,"  says  E.  L. 
Godkin,  "the  object  of  the  new  administration  in  Brooklyn  is 
to  break  down  so  far  as  possible,  the  system  of  conducting 
municipal  affairs  upon  business  principles."  Finally  the  peo- 
ple demanded  an  investigation  and  the  famous  Bacon  legis- 
lative investigation  followed.  Senator  Bacon  himself  calls 
Brooklyn  "the  paradise  of  gamblers  and  the  home  of  the  sa- 
loon." This  investigation  revealed  much  corruption  and  con- 
demned Mayor  Whitney  in  these  words:  "It  is  impossible 
to  exonerate  Mayor  Whitney  from  a  personal  responsibility 
for  these  abuses."  The  administration  of  Whitney  went 
down  in  disgrace,  under  legislative  condemnation  and  grand 
jury  presentments.  Thus  was  given  the  first  great  blow  to 
concentration.  Poor,  government  was  not  only  possible,  but 
it  was  evident  that  the  change  from  good  to  bad  government 
was  rapid  and  complete. 


55 

But  so  thoroughly  had  the  party  intrenched  itself  that  at 
the  next  election  boss  McLaughlin's  candidate — Mr.  Chapin 
— was  elected.  It  was  too  evident  that  lovers  of  good  gov- 
ernment could  hope  for  but  little  from  this  man.  He  re- 
tained the  worst  elements  of  Whitney's  administration.  Says 
the  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  "Chapin  has  swallowed 
his  pledges  to  the  city  and  meekly  and  submissively  takes  his 
orders  from  McLaughlin."  Although  this  continued  through- 
out his  administration,  he  was  nevertheless  elected  for  a  sec- 
ond term.  The  government  now  went  from  bad  to  worse. 
Heavy  expenditures  continued,  needless  public  works  were 
undertaken  and  finally  the  corruption  culminated  in  the  fa- 
mous water  works  scandal  by  which  the  city  of  Brooklyn 
would  ha\e  been  defrauded  of  over  a  million  dollars  had  not 
the  schemers  been  stopped  by  injunction. 

This  attempted  steal  did  not  prevent  boss  McLaughlin 
from  electing  Mayor  Boody  under  the  pretense  of  putting  in 
a  reform  man.  Mayor  Boody  was  a  man  of  education,  of 
eloquence  and  pecuniary  competence.  Not  only  this,  he  was 
for  years  a  reformer,  condemning  the  boss  and  the  politics 
of  spoils,  but  he  too,  was  from  the  first,  the  willing  tool  of 
the  bosses,  and  he  gave  modern  Brooklyn  the  worst  govern- 
ment in  its  history.  When  he  was  inaugurated  the  people 
demanded  a  clean  sweep,  yet  he  retained  nearly  every  one 
of  Chapin's  heads  of  departments,  thus  maintainmg  the  same 
old  type  of  corrupt  city  government.  Says  Edward  M.  Shep- 
herd, in  '93:  "It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  reputation 
for  evil  brought  upon  Brooklyn  by  the  last  two  years  of  Mr. 
Chapin's  mayoralty,  and  that  of  Mr.  Boody,  has  seriously 
diminished  the  attractiveness  of  the  city  for  residence  or  busi- 
ness in  the  opinion  of  its  own  citizens  and  still  more  of 
strangers."  Gentlemen,  when  Mr.  Boody  was  elected  mayor 
he  had  every  possible  motive  to  give  a  business  administra- 
tion, but  he  failed  miserably.  Even  Edward  M.  Shepherd, 
an  adverse  authority,  says:  "Mr.  Boody  himself  hardly  tries 
to  conceal  that  his  will   has  been   completely  effaced  by  that 


56 

of  boss  McLaughlin,  that  he  is  no  longer  a  free  agent,  but  is 
a  mere  agent  or  attorney  of  the  boss."  Such  is  the  record  of 
four  successive  administrations — eight  years  of  continuous 
decline  under  the  system  of  the  affirmative. 

Finally,  in  1893,  inspired  by  the  work  of  Dr.  Parkhurst, 
the  people  of  Brooklyn  rose  in  their  might  and  elected  Mayor 
Schieren — a  man  who  gave  Brooklyn  a  fairly  good  administra- 
tion. Yet  he  was  able  to  do  this  only  with  great  difficulty, 
for  the  city  had  been  under  control  of  Corrupt  men  so  long. 
Says  A.  R.  Conkling — a  writer  on  municipal  government — 
"The  political  revolution  in  Brooklyn  in  1893,  has  disclosed 
an  alarming  condition  of  municipal  affairs."  The  commis- 
sioner of  city  works  found  fifty  sinecures  in  his  department 
which  he  abolished  at  a  saving  to  the  city  of  $50,000,  while 
the  park  commissioner  found  seventy-five  idlers  in  that  de- 
partment. Says  Mayor  Schieren  himself,  in  August,  '94: 
"We  found  the  city's  financial  condition  embarrassing  as  there 
were  outstanding  contracts,  certified  and  uncertified,  for  sev- 
eral millions  of  dollars,  which  we  had  to  recognize." 

Even  following  this  civic  awakening  Brooklyn  does  not  en- 
joy good  government  to-day.  Says  C.  A.  Haviland,  a  prom- 
inent lawyer  of  Brooklyn:  "The  present  administration  is 
condemned  on  ever}^  hand.  Extravagance  and  recklessness 
and  catering  to  corporate  influence  now  dominates  in  Brook- 
lyn." The  civil  service  commission  has  had  constant  trouble 
with  the  present  mayor.  Many  temporary  appointments  have 
been  made,  new  offices  created  and  all  schemes  adopted  to 
evade  the  civil  service  rules.  So  flagrantly  has  he  abused 
these  rules  that  Mayor  Wurster  has  actually  been  brought  be- 
fore the  courts.  Says  Editor  McAneny,  secretary  of  the  Na- 
tional Civil  Service  Reform  League:  "Ultimately  Mr.  Wur- 
ster will  be  compelled  by  the  courts  and  by  public  opinion  to 
obey  the  law  and  the  constitution.  Meanwhile  he  is  strength- 
ening the  growing  conviction  that  he  will  not  hesitate  to  use 
his  high  office  to  advance  his  political  fortunes,  and  that  in 
trusting  to  his  promises  of  a  business  administration,  a  large 


57 

number  of  people  who  voted  for  him  were  sadly  fooled." 
Gentlemen,  without  well  enforced  civil  service  rules  this  sys- 
tem is  the  worst  form  of  a  political  machine,  and  it  seems 
thus  far  that  civil  service  rules  applied  under  such  a  system 
have  generally  failed  to  accomplish  their  purpose.  This  is 
the  experience  of  Brooklyn. 

I  now  wish  to  quote  from  a  few  prominent  authorities,  capa- 
ble judges  of  municipal  government,  who  have  had  every 
opportunity  to  observe  the  workings  of  the  affirmative  sys- 
tem in  Brooklyn  and  New  York.  James  C.  Carter — presi- 
dent of  the  American  Municipal  Reform  Associations,  and  a 
prominent  lawyer  of  New  York  city — writes:  '*I  do  not  be- 
lieve in  concentrating  in  the  office  of  mayor  the  unlimited 
power  of  appointment  and  removal  of  heads  of  departments." 
Writes  Simon  Sterne — a  recognized  authority  on  city  govern- 
ment—  **The  system  of  practically  abolishing  the  legislative 
power  and  influence  of  local  common  councils  and  concen- 
trating the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  New 
York  has  on  the  whole  disappointed  the  advocates  of  the  con- 
centration of  municipal  authority  in  the  hands  of  one  official." 
C.  A.  Haviland — a  leading  lawyer  of  Brooklyn,  writes:  "It 
has  become  a  serious  question  as  to  whether  in  trusting  su- 
preme control  to  the  mayor  is  wise."  William  M.  Ivins,  an 
active  reformer  and  a  member  of  a  chart;er  commission  of  'jj , 
writes:  "I  am  very  heartily  opposed  to  the  system  of  con- 
centrated executive  and  administrative  power  in  the  mayor. 
My  own  experience  has  been  that  it  does  not  work  well." 
Edmund  Kelly,  a  prominent  member  of  the  City  Club  of  New 
York  city,  writes:  ''I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the 
experience  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn  demonstrates  that  the 
system  proposed  is  a  thoroughly  bad  one."  Frank  J.  Good- 
now,  of  Columbia  College,  professor  of  administrative  law, 
and  an  unimpeachable  authority  on  municipal  government, 
writes:  "I  do  not  think  that  the  history  of  Brooklyn  under 
the  new  charter  that  was  adopted  in  1888,  and  which  vests  so 
much  power  in  the  mayor,  would  show  that  better    municipal 


58 

government  can  be  expected  under  it,  than  under  a  scheme 
which  recognizes  greater  powers  as  existing  in  the  council. 
Certainly  since  1888  the  government  (in  Brooklyn)  has  been 
oftener  bad  than  good."  Lastly,  the  greatest  practical  re- 
former of  the  19th  century.  Dr.  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  writes 
us:  "I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  wise  that  all  executive  and 
administrative  power  in  municipal  power  should  be  concen- 
trated in  the  mayor."  Worthy  jurors,  can  the  affirmative  in 
the  light  of  these  facts  and  contrary  to  these  authorities  ask 
you  to  adopt  their  system  of  municipal  government? 

Generalizing  from  insufficient  data,  they  ask  you  to  adopt 
a  system  which  strips  the  council  of  its  most  important  pow- 
ers, which  leaves  it  indeed  with  little  positive  power  for  good, 
while  capable  of  doing  much  harm.  They  can  urge  this  step 
for  one  reason  only,  that  these  powers  have  been  abused  by 
our  councils.  Now  worthy  jurors,  that  certain  councils  have 
abused  their  powers,  we  admit,  but  gentlemen,  I  ask  you  is 
their  position  a  logical  one.''  There  is  not  a  single  power  pos- 
sessed by  the  mayor  which  has  not  been  as  often  abused  as 
any  powder  possessed  by  any  American  council.  In  this  light 
there  can  be  no  just  reason  why  the  mayor  should  be  made  a 
dictator,  or  why  this  war  measure  should  be  adopted.  Not 
recognizing  the  true  solution  of  the  problem,  the  election  of 
better  councilmen,  the  friends  of  this  new  scheme  jump  to 
the  conclusion  that  these  powers  should  be  lodged  with  the 
mayor.  It  needs  no  study  to  see  what  effect  this  change  must 
have  upon  the  councils.  There  can  be  but  one  result — a 
speedy  deterioration  in  the  character  of  our  councilmen. 
Stripped  of  administrative  as  well  as  important  legislative 
powers,  the  position  of  councilman  loses  its  dignity  and  will 
be  relegated  to  the  lowest  elements  of  our  population.  Prof. 
Leo  S.  Rowe  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  in  a  per- 
sonal interview  says:  'T  believe  that  every  one  must  concede 
that  if  we  strip  the  council  of  jts  powers  the  character  of  its 
members  must  deteriorate."  James  W.  Pryor,  secretary  of 
the  City  Club  of  New  York,  says  in  a  personal  interview:    'T 


59 

have  every  reason  to  think  that  the  adoption  of  such  a  sys- 
tem would  lead  to  a  further  decline  in  the  councils.  I  cer- 
tainly believe  that  true  municipal  reform  must  tend  in  an  op- 
posite direction."  Examine  the  New  York  council  as  it  was 
before  the  first  concentrated  charter  was  adopted — a  body 
possessing-  most  serious  powers  and  performing  most  import- 
ant functions,  while  the  office  itself  was  held  in  credit  and 
esteem.  Examine  it  as  it  is  to-day — a  mere  historical  sur- 
vival. Worthy  jurors,  from  the  day  that  Boss  Tweed  put  his 
concentrated  charter  through  the  legislature  the  council  has 
steadily  declined.  This  same  decline  is  apparent  in  Brooklyn. 
Says  Hon.  St.  Clair  McKelway,  editor-in-chief  of  the  Brook- 
lyn Daily  Eagle :  "By  concentrating  all  notice  on  the  mayor- 
alty the  republicans  generally  name  a  poor  lot  of  aldermen." 
Regarding  the  condition  in  Boston,  Sam'l  B.  Capen, president 
of  the  Boston  Municipal  League,  writes:  '*We  are  well  aware 
that  our  council  under  our  present  city  charter  has  much  less 
power  than  in  former  years,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  so 
many  of  our  best  citizens  now  refuse  to  allow  their  names  to 
be  considered  in  connection  with  it." 

Gentlemen,  it  was  in  1887  that  the  concentrated  charter  of 
Philadelphia  was  adopted.  From  a  municipal  report  pub- 
lished in  1895  we  note  this  quotation:  "It  is  since  1887  that 
the  decline  in  the  tone  and  spirit  of  councils  has  been  most 
marked." 

It  seems  self  evident  that  the  adoption  of  this  scheme 
closes  the  way  for  improvement  in  the  character  of  our  coun- 
cils. Now  what  does  this  mean.?  It  means  just  that  which 
has  become  too  evident  in  Philadelphia,  New  York  and 
Brooklyn,  that  as  long  as  the  councils  are  retained,  perma- 
nent improvement  in  the  city  government  cannot  be  hoped  for 
without  improving  them.  It  means  just  what  all  students  of 
municipal  government  fully  realize,  that  permanent  reform  can 
never  come  by  degrading  the  council,  reformation  is  a  process 
of  elevation,  not  of  degradation.  Hence,  to  reform  a  council 
by  degrading  its  functions  is  clearly  an  inconsistent,  an  illogi- 
cal, a  vicious  effort. 


6o 

It  is  admitted  by  all  reformers  that  with  better  councils 
almost  any  kind  of  a  charter  will  work  well.  Without  them 
the  best  charter  in  the  world  will  not  improve  city  govern- 
ment. But  gentlemen,  the  council  can  never  be  raised  in 
standard  by  robbing  it  of  those  attractions  which  make  it 
inviting  to  the  man  ambitious  to  serve  his  city  honestly.  I 
repeat,  a  strong  council  cannot  long  exist  under  a  concen- 
trated system. 

Now,  worthy  jurors,  if  we  can  improve  the  councils  by 
removing  the  fundamental  causes  of  poor  city  government, 
why  take  these  powers  from  them.?  Why  introduce  a  tempo- 
rary, spasmodic  scheme  which  does  not  strike  at  the  real  root 
of  the  evil,  but  makes  our  councils  worse  instead  of  better.? 
If  the  affirmative  assume  that  we  cannot  elect  better  councils, 
why  do  they  still  leave  the  councils  certain  joint  powers  with 
the  mayor.?  To  show  their  system  logical,  it  devolves  upon 
them  to  improve  the  council,  else  we  must  conclude  that 
even  with  a  perfect  mayor,  municipal  government  under  their 
system  would  he  a  continuous  jangle.  If  one  man  power 
means  good  municipal  government,  why  do  not  the  affirma- 
tive give  to  the  mayor  these  few  remaining  powers  rather 
than  leave  them  only  to  hamper  him.? 

Already  a  reaction  has  set  in  against  this  novel  scheme,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  its  advocates  have  witnessed  too  many 
cases  where  it  would  have  been  a  grand  blessing  to  have  had 
a  mayor  restricted  by  a  good  council.  Because  they  know 
that  a  poor  mayor  in  league  with  a  bad  council  makes  poor 
city  government;  because  they  know  that  a  good  council  can- 
not exist  under  such  a  system,  and  that  one  man,  however 
good  he  may  be  while  hampered  with  a  poor  council  cannot 
alone  make  good  city  government. 

Not  only  this,  but  this  system  is  not  representative.  In 
the  words  of  Charles  Francis  Adams:  "Such  a  system  is 
nothing  but  a  municipal  Caesarism.  The  remedy  will  not  be 
found  by  working  in  that  direction,  for  America  is  essentially 
republican,  and  a  vigorous,  healthy,  representative  body,  is 
the  essence  of  republicanism.    Without  that  it  cannot  flourish. 


6 1 

If  therefore,  for  any  cause,  the  legislature  is  weak,  it  must  be 
strengthened.  If  it  is  corrupt,  it  must  be  purified.  It  must 
be  retained' and  it  must  be  made  powerful."  One  man  can 
neither  represent  the  different  localities,  nor  the  various  in- 
terests, parties  or  factions  of  the  community.  Such  a  sys- 
tem is  not  the  ultimate.  It  is  a  system  which  prevents  pub- 
licity and  discussion  and  renders  an  opposing  faction  impossi- 
ble. It  is  a  system  which  removes  the  government  farther 
and  farther  from  the  people,  and  stands  in  strong  contrast  to 
the  movements  for  proportional  representation  and  the  refer- 
endum in  municipal  affairs.  Such  a  system  is  not  the  ideal. 
A  system  with  a  strong  council,  composed  of  men  of  charac- 
ter, possessing  large  powers,  exercising  a  strong  supervisory 
control  over  the  departments,  representing  all  sections  and  all 
classes,  presents  a  government  continuous,  consistent,  Ameri- 
can. 

The  charter  commsssion  of  1877  faces  the  concentrated 
idea  squarely  in  these  words:  "We  have  no  confidence  in 
such  a  system.  It  finds  no  support  in  the  established  princi- 
ples of  representative  governments."  In  1890,  after  eight 
years  of  experience  with  the  concentrated  system  in  Brook- 
lyn, after  several  years  of  similar  experience  in  New  York 
city,  the  Fassett  Senate  Commission  made  a  report  compris- 
ing five  large  volumes,  and  it  is  by  far  the  most  complete  of 
its  kind.  The  commission  meets  the  question  of  concentra- 
tion in  this  strong  statement.  '*We  do  not  believe  in  mak- 
ing the  mayor  an  autocrat,  or  in  the  recent  tendency  of  leg- 
islation towards  the  abolition  of  government  by  council.  * 
^  ^  For  this  is  our  American  theory  of  government,  and 
we  do  not  believe  the  time  h:^s  yet  come  to  abandon  it." 


OTTO  BOSSHARD,  ATHENE 


The  negative  have  admitted  the  existence  of  great  evils  in 
American  municipal  government.  They  therefore  concede 
our  cause  for  action.  On  this  point,  then,  we  meet  them  on 
an  equal  footing.  The  only  difference  in  the  two  sides  in 
this"  debate  lies  in  the  remedies  proposed  for  the  evils.  The 
negative  have  proposed  merely  superficial  remedies.  They 
have  argued  that  a  stricter  enforcement  of  our  naturalization 
and  election  laws  and  the  adoption  of  civil  service  rules  in 
all  cities  is  practically  sufificient  to  cure  the  evils.  These 
reforms  are  beneficial  we  admit,  but  they  are  inadequate. 
They  do  not  strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil.  Civil  service  rules 
will  merely  do  away  with  minor  abuses  of  city  government, 
such  as  loose  book-keeping  or  careless  auditing.  These  are 
not  the  vital  defects  of  our  present  system.  The  great  evils, 
as  my  colleagues  have  shown,  are  complicated  machinery, 
the  consolidation  of  legislative  and  executive  functions  in  one 
body  and  the  division  of  responsibility.  Civil  service  rules 
will  not  remedy  these  evils.  Municipal  corruption,  extrava- 
gance and  inefficiency  will  continue  so  long  as  our  cities 
operate  under  a  system  of  divided  responsibility  and  complex 
mechantsm.  Our  system  provides  for  civil  service.  It  does 
all  that  the  system  of  the  negative  does.  But  it  goes  further. 
It  strikes  at  the  root  of  present  evils.  It  simplifies  the  ma- 
chinery of  government,  separates  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive functions  and  locates  responsibility.  Civil  service  and 
like  schemes  of  reform  fail  to  do  this. 

The  gentlemen  have  selected  several  cities  at  random,  each 
operating  under  the  council  system  and  have  shown  that  at 
present  and  in  years  past  these  cities  have  enjoyed  exceptionr 
ally  good  government.  They  have  also  shown  that  in  some 
particulars  the  administration  of  those  cities  operating  under 
our  system,  has  been  less  commendable  than  that  of  the  cities 

[62] 


63 

which  they  cited, — in  this  way  endeavoring  to  establish  the 
superiority  of  the  present  system  over  the  system  we  advo- 
cate here  to-night.  Such  a  comparison,  gentlemen,  amounts 
to  absolutely  nothing  in  this  discussion.  Difference  of  loca- 
tion, of  social  or  of  economic  conditions,  might  of  themselves 
sufficiently  explain  any  advantageous  showing  in  favor  of  one 
city  or  another.  But  aside  from  this,  we  maintain  that  the 
only  just  and  proper  method  of  judging  the  merits  of  our  sys- 
tem of  municipal  government  is  to  take  any  city  which  has 
adopted  it  and  compare  that  city's  condition  for  the  same 
number  of  years  before  and  after  its  adoption  of  our  system. 
If  by  such  a  comparison,  the  administration  and  general  con- 
dition of  that  city  since  the  adoption  of  the  new  charter  has 
been  shown  to  be  worse  than  prior  to  its  adoption,  then, 
gentlemen,  you  are  justified  in  condemning  that  system.  But 
if  on  the  other  hand,  as  I  will  endeavor  to  prove  in  the  course 
of  my  debate  the  general  administration  of  the  city  has  under- 
gone a  marked  improvement,  I  then  claim  that  the  federal 
system  is  preferable  to  the  present  cou^ncil  system. 

They  have  also  called  attention  to  European  council-gov- 
erned cities.  Again  I  need  not  remind  you  that  such  a  com- 
parison is  worthless,  for  with  European  conditions  so  radically 
different  from  conditions  in  this  country,  I  fail  to  see  the 
bearing  of  such  examples  on  this  discussion.  Indeed,  the 
very  fact  that  the  gentlemen  are  obliged  to  go  to  Europe  for 
successful  instances  of  their  system  shows  that  in  this  country 
such  instances  are  exceedingly  rare. 

It  is  charged  that  our  system  is  nothing  less  than  '  'Munic- 
pal  Caesarism."  They  endeavor  to  exaggerate  the  power  that 
a  mayor  will  wield  under  our  system.  We  are  creating  no 
new  functions  of  government.  We  are  not  investing  the 
mayor  with  any  powers  that  do  not  properly  belong  to  him, 
neither  are  we  depriving  the  council  of  any  that  it  ought  to 
exercise.  We  simply  vest  in  the  mayor  and  his  appointees — 
the  executive  department  of  city  government, — we  vest  in 
them  all  executive  and  administrative  duties.      We  leave  the 


64  .     • 

council  full  legislative  powers.  The  one  man  power,  which 
they  claim  is  to  be  avoided,  is  nothing  new  in  municipal  gov- 
ernment. We  have  it  now  under  our  council  system.  There 
is  scarcely  a  city  but  what  has  i.ts  boss  whose  power  is  infi- 
nitely greater  than  that  of  a  mayor's  under  our  system.  Not 
only  that,  but  the  boss  is  irresponsible  for  his  acts,  while  re- 
sponsibility is  centered  directly  upon  our  mayor.  Power  with- 
out responsibility  is  dangerous,  but  power  exercised  under 
definite  and  fixed  responsibility  is  not  dangerous.  It  means 
good  government. 

They  quote  certain  individual  members  of  each  of  the  Great 
New  York  Commissions  as  being  opposed  to  our  system.  The 
gentlemen  are  correct  in  so  far  as  they  have  gone.  But  the 
thing  of-  importance  in  the  matter  is  the  majority  report  of 
these  commissions.  The  majority  report  in  every  instance  is 
in  favor  of  the  system  we  uphold  here  to-night. 

They  point  to  the  city  of  New  York  as  an  example  of  the 
failure  of  our  system.  Yet  Mayor  Strong  on  page  12  of  his 
message  of  January  7,^1896,  says:  "The  actual  administra- 
tion of  municipal  affairs  in  this  city  is  in  the  hands  of  com- 
missioners and  not  in  the  hands  of  the  mayor,"  in  other  words 
New  York  is  governed  by  the  commission  system,  a  system 
of  divided  responsibility.  Hence  when  they  speak  of  corrup- 
tion and  inefficiency  in  the  government  of  New  York  city, 
they  simply  condemn  their  own  system. 

Their  whole  argument  against  our  system  has  been  based 
on  individual  statements  and  broad  generalization.  They 
have  adduced  no  specific  facts  to  substantiate  their  arguments. 

Thus  far  we  have  established  two  propositions,  (i.)  That 
existing  municipal  government,  administered  by  the  board 
and  commission  system,  is  exceedingly  corrupt;  that  the 
abuse  is  universal  and  that  no  relief  can  be  hoped  for  under 
the  prevailing  system.  (2.)  In  answer  to  the  crying  demand 
for  relief  from  these  evils  we  have  submitted  a  system  which 
was  conceived  in  reason  and  common  sense  and  we  have 
shown  that  its  operation  would  be  characterized  by  simplicity 
and  efificiency. 


65 

But  our  system  is  neither  new  nor  unique.  It  has  been 
tried  and  proven  eminently  successful  in  cities  formerly  reek- 
ing with  corruption  and  extravagance.  Uniformly  it  has  cre- 
ated order  and  purity  in  the  city's  affairs.  The  vicious  classes 
in  j!)olitics  have  desperately  opposed  it.  Yet  its  essential 
features  have  triumphed  in  Brooklyn,  Boston,  Philadelphia, 
Cleveland,  Indian.apolis,  Evansville,  Fort  Wayne  and  else- 
where. 

Brooklyn  was  the  pioneer  city  to  adopt,  in  1881,  a  reform 
charter  identical  in  its  essential  features  with  the  system  we 
propose  to-night.  Prior  to  this,  Brooklyn,  equally  with  New 
York,  had  been  preyed  upon  by  the  Tweed  Ring,  until  wrote 
Governor  Cornell:  "The  council  is  corrupt  and  irresponsible. 
Useless  offices  are  created.  Political  bosses  prey  like  vul- 
tures on  exhorbitant  tax -levies.      The  mayor  is  helpless." 

In  1882  after  a  bitter  fight  with  the  corrupt  element  the 
new  charter  was  established.  Says  William  DeWitt:  "Our 
emancipation  was  magical."  To-day  Brooklyn's  public  works 
department  is  a  recognized  model;  her  streets  are  unexcelled; 
her  fire  and  police  departments  are  unequalled.  Yet  the  econ- 
omy of  the  new  system  has  materially  reduced  the  tax-rate, 
the  average  rate  since  1881  being  a  decrease  of  15  per  cent, 
as  compared  with  the  average  of  the  ten  years  preceding. 
The  mayors  have  been  uniformly  capable  men.  They  are 
jealously  watched  and  the  importance  of  the  office  is  mani- 
fested by  the  fact  that  the  vote  for  mayor  often  exceeds  the 
city  vote  for  governor.  Previous  to  1881  says  Col.  Morton, 
a  member  of  the  New  York  Constitutional  Convention:  "We 
could  not  fix  responsibility  for  mismanagement.  But  to-day 
if  wrongs  are  committed,  the  mayor  must  correct  them  or 
fall  beneath  the  weapon  of  public  suffrage."  Mayor  Boody 
was  elected  in  1891  by  a  majority  of  7,500.  Failing  to 
remedy  abuses  he  suffered,  in  1893,  a  defeat  by  a  majority  of 
over  31,000.  Yet  this  mayor  was  guilty  of  inactivity  merely 
— nothing  worse — there  was  no  charge  of  corruption.  But 
the  greater  efficiency  of  other  mayors,  like  Low  and  Chapin, 
5-J-D. 


66 

has  been  rewarded  by  a  second  term  of  office,  for  the  people 
under  our  system  know  where  to  locate  responsibility  for  the 
city's  government. 

The  second  city  was  Boston,  which,  in  1885,  adopted  what 
is  practically  the  federal  system.  Up  to  this  time  a  vicious 
system  of  council  committees  and  some  forty-five  independent 
boards,  administered  the  affairs  of  the  city.  ''Many  of  these 
boards,"  reported  the  Citizens'  Association  of  that  city  in 
1884,  "have  sunk  to  such  a  level  of  incompetence  and  cor- 
ruption, that  public  opinion  has  cpmpelled  a  reform." 

The  new  charter  brought  about  an  increased  public  interest 
in  city  elections  and  a  greater  economy  and  efficiency  of 
administration. 

The  average  annual  tax-rate  for  the  ten  years  preceding 
the  adoption  of  the  new  charter  was  $13.03  per  $1,000  of 
assessed  valuation.  But  in  the  ten  years  since  that  time  the 
tax-rate  has  averaged  only  $11.53,  a  reduction  of  over  11 
per  cent,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  city's  population  has 
increased  28  per  cent. ;  and  in  spite  of  the  further  fact  that 
an  immense  system  of  public  improvements  was  carried  out, 
aggregating  upwards  of  $36,000,000  in  value. 

Philadelphia  was  the  third  city  to  adopt  the  federal  sys- 
tem. Her  new  charter,  called  the  Bullit  law,  was  adopted  in 
1887.  Six  years  of  continuous  fighting  by  an  organized  com- 
mittee of  100  citizens  was  necessary  to  defeat  the  ring  oppo- 
sition. The  vilest  crimes  in  municipal  corruption  had  marked 
Philadelphia's  previous  history.  In  1885  a  monster  memorial 
to  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania  read  as  follows:  "The  rate 
of  taxation  is  excessively  high,  yet  Philadelphia  is  recognized 
as  the  worst  paved  and  filthiest  city  in  the  civilized  world. 
The  water  is  unwholesome  and  offensive — the  sewers  are  nau- 
seating. Our  public  buildings  are  wretched  and  not  repaired. " 
The  memorial  ends  thus:  "The  real  cause  is  not  in  poor  men 
in  office  but  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  system  of  irresponsible 
government." 

The  new  charter  abolished  the  twenty-three  irresponsible 
boards  and  substituted  eight  departments.      The  mayors  have 


67 

since  been  uniformly  strong  nrien  and  are  a  restraint  on  cor- 
ruption. Says  John  .  C.  Bullit:  '*The  minimum  saving  to 
our  people  is  $3,000,000  per  annum,  due  primarily  to  the 
abolition  of  fifteen  extravagant  boards."  This  economy  has 
enabled  the  city  under  the  new  charter  to  construct  an  ideal 
sewage  system;  to  thoroughly  pave  her  streets  and  perfect  her 
fire  and  police  departments  and  her  general  administration, 
at  the  same  time  paying  off  $47,000,000  of  the  city  debt,  re- 
ducing it  from  $62,000,000  in  1887  to  $15,000,000  in  1896, 
— and  more  remarkable  still,  her  rate  of  taxation  has  not  in- 
creased. Says  Penrose  in  his  history  of  Philadelphia:  "His- 
torians will  date  the  beginning  of  scientific  government  in 
Philadelphia  from  the  passage  of  the  Bullit  bill." 

The  fourth  city  to  adopt  the  federal  system  was  Cleveland. 
After  struggling  for  a  number  of  years  with  constantly  in- 
creasing taxes,  debts  and  corruption,  the  people  rebelled  and, 
in  1 887,  the  Cleveland  board  of  trade  headed  an  agitation,  which 
after  a  prolonged  struggle  with  the  infamous  Cleveland  boodle 
ring,  gave  them,  in  1891,  a  new  charter  almost  identical  with 
that  of  Brooklyn.  Previous  to  this  says  Judge  Blandin: 
-"There  was  discord  and  strife  between  the  independent 
boards.  A  crushing  burden  of  taxation  was  levied  only  to 
serve  as  a  spoils  fund.  The  city's  most  valuable  franchises 
were  the  private  stock  in  trade  of  vicious  demagogues,  and 
there  was  no  remedy  for  the  people  were  unable  to  fix  respon- 
sibility." The  maze  of  complicated  boards  and  committees 
were  organized  into  six  distinct  departments,  all  responsible 
to  the  mayor. 

The  first  year  under  the  new  charter,  1 891,  showed  a  de- 
crease in  departmental  expenses  of  over  $129,000,  and  this 
in  face  of  the  fact  that  27  per  cent,  more  paving,  and  33  per 
cent,  more  sewers  were  laid  in  1891  than  in  1890.  Says 
Comptroller  Rositer:  "The  city  saves  by  the  new  charter 
20  per  cent,  on  all  its  purchases;  in  the  expenses  of  adminis- 
tration, $26,000,  and  in  di.scounts  received  by  prompt  pay- 
ments, $70,000."  This,  he  adds,  "would  be  impossible 
under  the  old  board  system."     The  city's  funds  are  invested 


6S 

at  an  average  rate  of  4.31  per  cent.,  which  formerly  brought 
less  that  2  per  cent.  This  nets  the  city  more  than  $100,000 
per  annum. 

The  tax-rate  still  further  shows  the  economy  resulting  from* 
the  new  system.  During  the  five  years  preceding  the  new 
charter  the  tax-rate  rose  17  per  cent.  In  the  five  years  after 
it  fell  1 1  per  cent.  Again,  the  total  amount  of  taxes  have 
increased  only  17  per  cent,  while  population  has  increased 
34  per  cent.  Yet  with  1 1  per  cent,  decreased  burden  of 
taxes,  $8,620,000  worth  of  permanent  improvements  have 
been  added  at  an  increase  of  only  $1,360,000  in  the  city  debt, 
thus  showing  an  actual  saving  to  the  city  of  $7,200,000. 

Writes  the  mayor:  "The  success  of  the  charter  is  so  great 
that  the  people  jealously  refuse  to  assent  to  changesin  it, 
even  though  they  be  desirable." 

The  next  city  to  adopt  the  federal  plan  was  Indianapolis, 
in  1891.  Previous  to  this  time,  according  to  Hon.  Lucius  B. 
Swift,  the  streets  were  almost  impassable,  there  being  but  two 
miles  of  improved  roadway.  No  adequate  system  of  sewer- 
age had  been  provided,  neither  was  there  a  serviceable  sys- 
tem of  street  lighting,  in  short,  the  city  suffered  all  the  evils 
of  a  corrupt  and  incompetent  government. 

To-day  they  have  fifty-two  miles  of  improved  streets.  In 
1891  they  had  but  twenty-three  miles  of  sewers,  while  to-day 
they  haue  over  seventy-seven.  Before  1891  the  city  used 
only  antiquated  gas  lighting;  now  they  have  821  electric  lights. 
While  the  public  debt  has  increased  but  $400,000,  the  value 
of  permanent  improvements  has  increased  by  over  $5,000,- 
000,  and  the  tax-rate  has  actually  declined.  This  remark- 
able change,  says  the  board  of  public  works  in  its  last  annual 
report:  "We  believe  to  be  due  primarily  to  the  improved 
methods  in  the  management  of  the  city's  affairs  under  the  new 
charter."  Writes  G.  L.  Payne,  editor  of  the  Indianapolis 
News:  "Jobbery  and  corruption  under  the  new  charter  have 
been  unknown." 

"The  great  increase  of  interest  in  city  affairs  is   shown  by 


69 

the  extraordinarily  large  vote  at  municipal  elections."  ''It 
may  be  safely  asserted  that  this  city  has  profited  to  an  unusual 
degree  by  the  new  charter." 

Fort  Wayne,  Indiana,  is  the  next  city  whose  charter, 
adopted  in  1893,  is  an  exact  model  of  our  system.  During 
the  first  year  of  its  operation  the  department  of  streets,  ex- 
pended 45  per  cent,  less  than  it  did  the  previous  year,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  more  miles  of  streets  were  im- 
proved than  ever  before.  In  less  than  two  years  a  $15,000 
deficit  was  transformed  into  a  $15,000  surplus,  while  at  the 
end  of  the  next  year  this  surplus  was  increased  to  $73,000, 
and  the  problem  now,  says  the  mayor,  in  his  last  annual  mes- 
sage, is  how  to  get  rid  of  the  surplus.  A  special  fund  has  al- 
ready been  set  aside  to  be  applied  to  the  building  of  a  mu- 
nicipal lighting  plant.  The  tax  rate  has  also  greatly  declined, 
being  $1.05  per  $100  assessed  valuation  during  the  first  year 
and  $.95  per  $100  each  succeeding  year  since  the  adoption  of 
the  new  charter, — while  during  the  coming  year — estimates 
the  comptroller,  a  rate  of  $.75  per  $100  will  be  sufificient  for 
all  purposes.  The  city  debt  has  also  been  reduced  by  $8,000 
during  the  same  period.  Writes  the  mayor  in  his  last  annual 
message:  "A  new  era  of  progress  and  prosperity  has  dawned 
upon  the  city." 

Says  Chas.  McCulloch,  president  of  the  first  national  bank 
of  Fort  Wayne:  "The  improvement  under  the  new  charter 
has  been  most  marked.  The  standard  of  ofificers  is  higher, 
and  the  people  take  greater  interest  in  the  elections." 

The  next  city  to  adopt  the  federal  plan  was  Evansville, 
Ind.,  in  1893.  Prior  to  the  new  charter  the  bonded  debt  of 
the  city  was  over  $2,000,000  with  little  or  nothing  to  show 
for  it.  Ten  years  before  the  city  had  repudiated  its  debt  and 
its  credit  was  gone.  With  the  adoption  of  the  new  charter 
there  was  a  remarkable  decline  in  the  annual  operating  ex- 
penses. The  average  yearly  expenditures  under  the  new 
charter  were  but  $360,000,  while  in  the  same  period  before  its 
adoption,  the  average  was   $403,000,  a  saving  of  $43,000  or 


70 

II  per  cent,  a  year, — although  the  city's  population  had  in- 
creased 20  per  cent,  since  1890.  As  further  proof  we  cite 
the  tax-rate,  which  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  assessed 
valuation  has  remained  practically  the  same  since  1891,  still 
shows  a  rapid  decrease. 

The  average  rate  for  the  period  prior  to  the  operation  of 
our  charter  was  $1.52^  per  $100  assessed  valuation,  while 
since  its  adoption  it  has  been  but  $1.27  per  $iOO, — a  decrease 
of  16  per  cent.  In  spite  of  all  this  saving,  says  the  mayor  in 
his  last  annual  message:  "All  public  buildings  have  been 
kept  in  excellent  repair.  New  streets  have  been  paved  and 
sidewalks  laid;  our  parks  have  been  greatly  improved." 

We  have  now  presented  to  you  seven  concrete  examples. 
All  have  been  in  practical  operation  sufficiently  long  to  have 
hadadistinctand  determining  influence  on  the  city's  condition. 
Their  charters  differ  somewhat  in  detail,  but  in  their  gen- 
eral principles  they  coincide  with  our  system.  Uniformly 
the  result  has  been  a  marvelous  improvement.  None  of  these 
cities  would  now  revert  to  the  old  system.  In  addition  to 
these  seven,  the  following  have  during  the  past  two  years 
practically  adopted  the  federal  plan:  Columbus,  Holyoke, 
Elmira,  Springfield,  O.,  Binghampton,  Bridgeport,  and  Buf- 
falo. Every  change  in  charters  has  been  in  the  direction  of 
giving  the  mayor  greater  power  and  corresponding  responsi- 
bility. ~*The  recently  proposed  charter  of  greater  New  York 
is  the  embodiment  of  our  system. 

SUMMARY. 

What  was  it  that  suggested  this  subject  for  discussion.-^  It 
was  not  a  mere  desire  for  debate;  it  was  not  the  product  of 
fanciful  theory.  Our  plan  suggests  no  radical  or  revolution- 
ary changes  in  our  institutions. 

Universally  it  is  known  that  municipal  government  in  this 
country  is  a  conspicuous  failure.  Few  cities,  outside  of  those 
that  have  adopted  our  system,  can  boast  of  an  honest  and 
businesslike  government.  Immense  municipal  debts  are  mul- 
tiplying year  by  year.     Taxes  are  high  and  oppressive.      Cur- 


n 

rent  expenditures  are  enormous,  and  yet  the  money  spent 
brings  small  returns  in  the  shape  of  municipal  service.  Streets 
are  uncleaned;  sewers  unrepaired;  public  works  neglected; 
wastefulness  and  utter  incompetency  everywhere.  Yet  there 
are  other  evils  of  a  more  alarming  nature, — the  evils  of  mu- 
nicipal corruption  and  rottenness.  Franchises  of  immense 
value  are  granted  for  almost  nothing.  Their  passage  through 
the  council  is  affected  by  means  of  wholesale  and  barefaced 
bribery.  Lavish  appropriations  are  squandered.  Measures 
of  blackmail  are  regularly  introduced.  Aldermanic  votes 
are  as  purchasable  as  ordinary  merchandise, — as  the  recent 
instances  in  New  York  and  Minneapolis  bear  witness. 

The  American  people  desire  good  government.  Why  then,  is 
it  that  corruption  and  rottenness  in  the  administration  of  mu- 
nicipal affairs  is  ever  present.^*  It  is  due  to  one  all-important  fact. 
It  is  due  to  the  division  of  responsibility  in  city  government. 
We  find  the  administrative  work  of  the  city  divided  among 
numerous  boards,  committees,  individuals  and  commissions, 
the  duties  of  one  body  overlapping  and  clashing  with  those 
of  another.  There  is  no  definite  head,  no  source  of  common 
direction  or  common  responsibility.  All  is  chaos  and  confu- 
sion! Divided  responsibility  is  no  responsibility.  It  fosters 
corruption  and  shields  the  guilty.  It  attracts  to  public  office 
the  ignorant  and  vicious.  It  repulses  the  able  and  conscien- 
tious. It  is  the  division  of  responsibility,  due  to  the  pres- 
ent complicated  system,  that  shields  the  boodler  from  detec- 
tion and  punishment,  and  has  filled  our  city  councils  with  the 
most  disreputable  of  political  scum. 

These  evils  are  not  temporary  or  transient.  They  are  the 
inevitable  consequence  of  any  system  that  divides  responsi- 
bility. 

We,  of  the  affirmative,  have  presented  for  your  considera- 
tion a  remedy  that  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  these  evils.  A 
remedy  that  is  reasonable,  simple,  effective  and  practical. 

Our  remedy  is  reasonable.  It  involves  no  radical  or  revo- 
lutionary change.      It  is  not  necessary  that  every  city  should 


72 

abolish  its  present  and  adopt  our  proposed  charter.  Most  of 
our  cities  have  already  taken  steps  in  that  direction.  All 
that  is  necessary  would  be  a  few  simple  amendments  to  the 
present  charter,- — as  in  the  case  of  Boston  and  other  cities 
that  have  adopted  our  plan. 

Our  remedy  is  simple.  It  does  not  propose  any  elaborate 
or  complicated  system,  but  simply  organizes  the  city  govern- 
ment on  a  business  basis.  Its  chief  characteristics  are:  that 
it  makes  a  sharp  divisioi)  between  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive departments  of  government;  that  it  abolishes  the  existing 
conglomeration  of  irresponsible  boards  and  consolidates  them 
into  a  sufficient  number  of  responsible  single-headed  depart- 
ments; that  it  systematizes  and  simplifies  our  present  admin- 
istrative machinery;  in  a  word,  that  it  brings  order  out  of 
chaos  and  converts  complex  inefficiency  into  businesslike  sim- 
plicity. 

Not  only  is  our  system  reasonable  and  simple, — it  is  also 
effective.  It  cures  the  evil  by  removing  its  cause.  By  mak- 
ing the  office  of  mayor  one  of  power  and  responsibility  better 
men  will  seek  the  position.  By  narrowing  the  issue  and  in- 
creasing the  public  interest  at  elections,  the  people  can  in- 
vestigate the  qualifications  of  the  candidate,  and  see  that  only 
the  best  men  are  chosen  to  office;  while  only  a  single  election 
is  required  to  turn  out  an  inefficient  administration.  There 
will  be  HO  inducements  for  corrupt  men  to  seek  city  office, 
because  the  responsibility  will  be  so  located  that  the  public 
can  lay  its  finger  upon  the  offender.  And  the  city  adminis- 
tration will  be  more  efficient,  because  organized  on  a  business 
basis. 

That  our  system  has  proven  successful  in  practical  opera- 
tion I  have  already  shown. 

Our  remedy  then,  is  reasonable,  simple,  effective  and  prac- 
tical. But  it  is  more  than  that.  In  view  of  the  present  de- 
plorable condition  of  our  cities, — the  recent  instances  of  cor- 
ruption,— our  system  is  absohitely  necessary. 

As  opposed  to  this  what  have  the  negative  to  offer.^     They 


73 

tell  you  that  the  one-man  power  is  dangerous.  We  reply, 
that  by  making  the  mayor  the  head  of  the  city,  responsibility 
will  be  centralized;  that  divided  responsibility  has  been  the 
source  of  our  municipal  evils. 

They  attack  our  system  as  undemocratic,  in  so  doing  they 
attack  the  very  principles  upon  which  our  national  govern- 
ment has  been  run  for  over  a  hundred  years. 

They  tell  you  that  the  evils  of  the  present  system  are  only 
temporary,  not  inherent;  that  civil  service  rules  will  afford  a 
complete  remedy.  For  answer  we  point  to  our  city  and  na- 
tional governments^  Both  have  suffered  from  the  spoils  sys- 
tem, yet  one  is  a  failure,  the  other  a  success.  If  the  differ- 
ence of  system  is  not  the  cause,  what  is.?  Our  system  provides 
for  civil  service  regulations.  But  it  goes  further.  It  strikes 
at  the  root  of  the  evil. 

They  point  to  European  cities  under  the  council  system, 
and  wisely,  for  American  experience  under  that  system  can 
give  them  little  encouragement. 

They  speak  of  the  burden  of  proof.  Yet  how  insignificant 
is  the  burden  we  bear  compared  to  the  burden  resting  upon 
the  negative.  We  seek  no  new  system.  All  we  ask  is  to 
apply  to  our  cities  those  same  principles  that  have  made  our 
national  government  so  conspicuous  a  success, — to  extend  a 
system  already  operating  in  over  a  dozen  cities. 

Reform  is  not  radicalism.  Indeed  it  becomes  conservatism 
when  it  is  in  response  to  a  crying  demand  for  relief  from 
present  evils.  How  shall  the  negative  answer  this.?  Upon 
them,  then,  rests  the  great  burden  of  vindicating  the  present 
deplorable  conditions. 

They  must  defend  the  present  unbusinesslike  system,  which 
places  executive  powers  in  legislative  hands.  They  must 
prove  that  divided  responsibility  is  a  sound  and  safe  principle 
in  our  republican  form  of  government.  They  must  justify  a 
system  that  gives  rise  to  every  phase  of  municipal  corruption; 
a  system  unsuited  to  American  conditions,  at  variance  with 
modern  tendencies,  and  contrary  to  every  principle  of  busi- 
ness management. 


74 

On  the  other  hand, — they  oppose  a  system  which  strikes 
at  the  root  of  these  evils;  a  system  which  separates  legisla- 
tive from  executive  functions;  which  locates  responsibility  and 
organizes  the  city  on  a  business  basis.  They  oppose  a  system 
advocated  by  every  investigating  committee  and  supported 
by  such  men  as  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  Cleveland, 
and  David  Dudley  Field. 

And,  finally,  they  oppose  that  consummation  of  lOO  years 
of  municipal  progress, — the  recent  charter  of  greater  New 
York, — drawn  by  the  most  distinguished  committee  that  ever 
considered  municipal  questions, — Judge  Dillon,  Simon  Sterne, 
Ben.  F.  Tracy,  William  DeWitt  and  Seth  Low, — a  charter 
that  in  every  important  feature  is  the  exact  embodiment  of 
the  system  we  propose  to-night. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  your  decision  if  it  be  for  the  nega- 
tive must  embody  an  explanation  of  the  admitted  and  utter 
failure  of  the  present  system;  must  oppose  the  separation  of 
legislative  from  executive  functions;  must  antagonize  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  national  government;  must  defend  the  division 
of  responsibility  in  city  administration;  must  oppose  the  in- 
troduction of  business  methods  in  city  affairs;  must  hold  that 
the  unanimous  decision  of  authorities  and  investigating  com- 
mittees is  wrong;  must  oppose  all  reform  and  run  counter  to 
the  tendencies  of  the  time. 

Your  decision,  if  it  be  for  the  affirmative,  will  be  simply  a 
vindication  of  that  progressive  conservatism,  which  supports 
our  system  as  the  only  practical,  businesslike  remedy  for 
present  evils. 


THEO.  W.  BRAZEAU,  PHILOHATHIA 


The  affirmative  propose,  as  a  remedy  for  municipal  ills,  an 
organic  change  in  city  government.  They  propose  to  take 
from  the  legislative  branch  its  positive  strength,  and  to  vest 
in  one  man  all  executive  and  administrative  as  well  as  the 
most  important  legislative  powers. 

They  have  attempted  to  justify  this  step  by  claiming  that 
their  system  was  a  strict  division  of  executive  and  adminis- 
trative from  legislative  function.  The  supreme  court  of 
Massachusetts  decided  (142  Mass.  201)  that  the  initiation  of 
public  improvements  was  not  an  executive  or  administrative 
power.  Neither  is  the  affirmative  system  a  division  such  as 
exists  in  the  United  States  government,  for  congress  has 
power  to  make  any  appropriation  it  desires,  while  under  the 
affirmative  system  the  legislative  branch  has  not. 

The  system  of  the  affirmative  gives  the  mayor  power  to 
make  all  estimates  for  the  following  fiscal  year.  The  coun- 
cil has  no  power  to  increase  these  estimates,  but  is  left  only 
the  negative  power  of  decreasing  them.  The  power  to  make 
"all  estimates,"  in  its  practical  workings,  gives  the  mayor 
power  to  make  all  appropriations,  and  therefore  the  power  to 
initiate  all  public  improvements  and  public  work.  Construct- 
ing and  extending  sewer,  water  and  lighting  systems,  crea- 
ting and  enlarging  parks,  building  bridges,  opening,  extend- 
ing, and  improving  streets,  and  constructing  public  buildings, 
are  all  in  the  hands  of  the  executive.  Not  only  is  the  mayor 
given  the  power  of  executing  public  works  but  he  is  also  given 
the  power  to  determine  whether  they  shall  or  shall  not  be 
done. 

The  initiation  of  public  improvements  and  the  dicision  of 
as  to  the  amount  and  purpose  of  public  expenditure,  are 
clearly  discretionary  powers  and  belong  to  the  legislative 
branch.      To  take  the  control  of  the  purse  from  the  legislative 

[75] 


7(> 

body,  is  a  confession  of  the  failure  of  the  representative  idea 
that  few  American  citizens  are  willing  to  make. 

Municipal  government  would  not  be  improved  by  transfer- 
ing  powers  of  the  council  to  the  mayor  anymore  than  the  na- 
tional government  would  be  improved  by  transfering  congres- 
sional powers  to  the  presidents. 

If  our  councils  are  poor  the  people  must  face  the  problem 
squarely  and  improve  them. 

The  affirmative  recognize  that  the  council  must  be  retained. 
They  also  give  it  important  negative  powers  in  granting  fran- 
chises and  licenses,  and  decreasing  the  estimates  of  the  mayor. 
With  a  poor  council  these  powers  must  only  hamper  the 
mayor  as  the  experience  of  Brooklyn  has  shown,  with  a'  good 
council  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  all  legislative  power  should 
not  be  entrusted  to  that  body. 

The  union  of  powers  in  one  man,  such  as  proposed  in  this 
question,  is  contrary  to  the  representative  theory  of  govern- 
ment and  is  a  decided  step  backward. 

The  affirmative  claim,  however,  that  the  concentration  of 
power  in  one  man  will  awaken  responsibility  in  the  people. 
To  prove  this  they  have  given  figures  which  they  claim  show 
a  larger  vote  under  the  centralized  system  than  under  other 
systems. 

Let  us  examine  the  value  of  those  figures.  In  the  first 
place  he  did  not  use  the  same  standard  of.  comparison 
throughout  his  tables.  In  some  cases  he  used  population,  in 
others  vote  for  governor.  I  have  used  the  same  standard  in 
each  comparison. 

Second,  the  increase  for  mayor  should  not  be  compared  with 
the  increase  for  governor,  but  the  vote  for  mayor  under  the 
centralized  system  compared  with  the  vote  for  mayor  under  the 
council  system  in  the  same  city. 

Third,  the  standard  of  comparison  he  took  was  not  a  good 
one.  The  vote  for  governor,  is  not  an  index  to  the  possible 
number  of  votes,  because  it  is  almost  as  light  as  the  vote  for 
mayor,  and    also    because  the  city  vote  is  increased  so  largely 


each  year  by  the  annexation  of  suburbs,  while  this  does  not 
affect  the  vote  for  governor.  The  mistake  of  comparing  vote 
with  population  is  still  greater.  Population  gives  us  little  idea 
of  the  number  of  possible  votes  because  the  foreign  popula- 
tion differs  so  in  different  places. 

Our  comparisons  have  been  with  the  presidential  vote,  be- 
cause the  vote  for  president  gives  the  best  index  to  the  pos- 
sible number  of  votes.  A  large  number  are  called  out  by  the 
excitement  of  a  presidential  campaign,  and  every  one  who 
votes  for  president  can  vote  for  mayor.  We  have  compared 
the  same  city  under  both  systems,  except  Brooklyn  and  In- 
dianapolis, for  which  we  were  unable  to  get  the  votes  under 
a  council  system.  Of  course  the  comparison  in  these  two 
cities  do  not  show  anything  either  way. 

Chart  No.  S^Brooklyn. 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor  to 
Presidential  Vote. 

1880 

107,319 

1881 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1887 
1888 

86,895 
98,562 

20,424 

89 

119,496 

20,934 

82 

100,560 
118,450 

157,685 

39,238 

75 

1889 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1895 
1896 

124,951 
146,709 



177,655 

30,946 

"" 82 

166,717 
170,982 

190,947 

19.965 

89 

78 


Chart  No.  9. — Philadelphia. 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor  to 
Presidential  Vote. 

^  6 

1880 
I88I 
1884 

173,889 
174.747 

I'" 

150.643 
149,669 

23.246 
25.078 

86 
85 

1887 
1888 

,891 
1892 
1895 

1896 

152,663 

S 

204,520 

51.857 

74 

M 

179,628 

-c;? 

203,103 

23,475 

88 

>, 

214,925* 

^ 

244,892 

29,967 

86 

*In  some  cases  the  figures  used  in  these  charts  differ  slightly  from  those  used 
by  the  affirmative.  This  difference  is  due  to  the  authorities  used.  Some  in- 
clude the  vote  for  all  minor  candidates  while  others  do  not. 


Chart  No.  io. — Cleveland. 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor 
TO  Presidential  Vote. 

1880 
I88I 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1887 
1888 
1889 

29,091 

■B 

19,624 
24.443 

9.467 

67 

S 

^ 

'  37.864 

13,421 

64 

28,099 
25.298 

31,333 

74 

0 



0 
0 
0 

41,178 

15,880 

76 

.    ... 

189  I 
1892 
1893 
1895 
1896 

34. 190 

s 

46,666 

12,476 

73 

t-r     (A 

37.767 
45.909 

80 

^^' 

S 

69.735 

23.058 

65 

79 


Chart  No.  ii. — Indianapolis. 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor  to 
Presidential  Vote. 

1891 

22,568 

1892 

1893 
1895 
1896 

34,949 

8.794 

64 

28,715 
31.751 

38,787 

7.036 

81 

Chart  No.  12.- 

—Cincinnati. 

Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor  to 
Presidential  Vote. 

S 

1884 
1885 
1887 
2888 
1889 

> 

57.856 

« 

51,745 
47,167 

6,111 

89 

-=  >> 

0  C/5 

a 

64. 193 

3 

50,803 

14,390 

72 

^ 

e 

189I 
1892 

1893 
1894 

51,556 

12.843 

80 

0} 

64.399 

0  t*^ 

>•(/) 

m 

54.574 

9,825 

82 

^ 

Chart  No.  13.— Boston. 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor 
TO  Presidential  Vote. 

e 

1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 
1884 

1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
189I 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 

41,654 
40, 167 
41,292 

53,449 
51.673 

53.335 

11,681 

78 

0   tn 

SC/) 

0 
U 

58,368 

6.695 

88 

44.697 
45.709 
51.825 
63.552 
56,881 
54.254 
55.019 
66,667 
68,228 
68,588 
76,721 

S 

65,169 

1,617 

97 

>, 

C/5 

05 

74,683 

8,016 

89 

^ 

'■** 

82,307 

5.586 

93 

8o 


Chart  No.  14. — Milwaukee,  (Council  City.) 


Year. 

Mayor  Vote. 

Presidential 
Vote. 

Difference. 

Per  cent,  of  Mayor  to 
Presidential  Vote. 

1882 

16,866 
20,422 
26,578 
31.975 
31.033 
38,885 

46,451 
42,414 

1884 
1886 

28,899 

8,477 

70 

1888 
1890 
1892 
1894 
1896 

37.121 

5.146 

86 

45.011 

6,126 

86 

63,432 

21,018 

67 

As  far  as  these  election  statistics  show  anything  they  show 
no  general  increase  of  vote  under  the  concentrated  system, 
such  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  greater  inter- 
est under  that  system  than  under  other  systems.  Boston  is 
the  only  city  that  shows  a  greater  per  cent,  of  votes  since  the 
adoption  of  a  concentrated  system,  and  it  only  shows  it  for 
the  particular  years  used.  For  all  other  years  it  shows  no 
greater  vote  than  under  the  old  system.  Indianapolis  and 
Brooklyn  under  concentrated  systems  show  no  greater  per 
cent,  of  votes  than  Milwaukee  under  a  council  system. 

The  vote  for  mayor  under  a  ''mayor  system"  tells  the  same 
sad  and  significant  story  of  civic  indifference  as  the  vote  un- 
der other  systems.  (See  chart.)  Brooklyn  has  as  high  as 
39,000  stay  away  voters  in  one  election.  Philadelphia,  where 
the  indifference  is  very  great,  had  as  many  as  5 1 ,  000  voters  stay 
at  home  while  corruption  ran  riot  in  the  city  hall.  Cleveland 
had,  in  1895,  27,058  indifferent  voters,  Indianapolis  7,000 
out  of  38,000,  Cincinnati  9,  825,  and  Boston  8,000. 

I  think  I  am  warranted  in  saying  that  there  is  no  greater 
interest  under  a  system  of  concentration  than  under  any  other 
system.  At  least  no  greater  interest  is  shown  by  the  votes 
cast  *  city  elections. 

Since,  then,  the  concentration  of  pbwer  in  the  mayor  fails 
to  arouse  greater  interest  in  municipal  affairs,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  the  same  evils  under  that  system  as  under  other 
systems. 


8i 

Let  us  look  at  the  practical  operation  of  concentration  in 
the  United  States. 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  Quincy,  Mass.,  Indianapolis,  Cleveland, 
Boston,  Cincinnati,  Philadelphia  and  a  few  minor  cities  have 
adopted  a  system  similar  to  that  proposed  by  the  affirmative. 
Here  we  should  expect  to  find  all  the  benefits  claimed  for  con- 
centration. 

My  colleague  has  shown  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  affirma- 
tive system  in  Brooklyn  has  failed  to  accomplish  its  aim. 
Since  1882  they  have  had  Whitney,  Boody  and  two  terms  of 
Chapin,  all  subservient  tools  of  "Boss  McLaughin,"  and  at 
present  they  are  enduring  the  reign  of  Frederick  W,  Wur- 
ster. 

Ex-Mayor  Schieren  of  Brooklyn,  writes  us,  and  also  testi- 
fies in  an  interview  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  August 
4,  1894,  that  the  administrations  of  Mayors  Boody,  Whitney 
and  Chapin  were  corrupt. 

Frank  J.  Goodnow,  professor  of  administrative  law  in  Co- 
lumbia college,  writes  us:  "I  do  not  think  that  the  history  of 
Brooklyn  under  the  new  charter  that  was  adopted  in  1888, 
and  which  vests  so  much  power  in  the  mayor,  would  show 
that  better  municipal  government  can  be  expected  under  it 
than  under  a  scheme  which  recognizes  greater  powers  as  ex- 
isting in  the  council.  Certainly  since  1888  the  government 
has  been  oftener  bad  than  good." 

James  McKeen,  a  prominent  attorney  of  Brooklyn,  and 
member  of  the  civil  service  league,  C.  Augustus  Haviland, 
an  attorney  interested  in  municipal  reform,  Geo.  F.  Peabody 
of  the  Brooklyn  civil  service  league,  Edward  M.  Shepard  re- 
form candidate  for  mayor  against  Wurster,  Elmer  E.  Johnson 
of  the  Brooklyn  civil  service  league,  and  many  others  whose 
names  I  am  requested  not  to  publish,  all  testify  independently 
to  the  same  fact,  that  Boody,  Chapin,  Whitney  and  Wurster 
have  given  Brooklyn  poor  government. 

Good  Government,  the  civil  service  league  organ,  is  now 
attacking  Wurster   for  the  abuse  of  his  power.      To  summar- 

6 — ^J.D. 


82 

ize  the  results  in  Brooklyn  we  can  say  that  they  have  elected 
four  corrupt  mayors  out  of  six. 

The  affirmative  claimed  that  Mayor  Chapin  paid  only  $400,- 
000  for  the  suburban  water  plant  my  colleague  spoke  of.  The 
fact  is  Mayor  Chapin  signed  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of 
this  plant  for  over  one  million  dollars,  but  its  execution  was 
stopped  by  injunction,  and  the  case  is  now  pending  in  the 
United  States  supreme  court. 

New  York's  corruption  under  an  extreme  concentrated  sys- 
tem, is  too  well  known  to  need  mention.  Grant  and  Gilroy 
gave  New  York  the  most  corrupt  government  in  the  world. 

In  1889,  Quincy,  Mass.,  adopted  a  charter  concentrating 
power  in  the  mayor. 

In  its  practical  workings,  the  charter  has  been  such  a  dis- 
mal failure,  that  its  author,  Mr.  Bradford,  in  1893,  said:  "It 
must  be  admitted  upon  evidence  of  leading  citizens  of  Quincy, 
that  the  charter  has  thus  far  failed  to  accomplish  its  purpose; 
that  extravagance  of  expenditure,  local  jobbing  and  caucus 
politics,  are  as  rampant  as  in  any  other  city  in  the  state." 

In  1 89 1  Indianapolis  adopted  a  charter  exactly  like  the  one 
proposed  by  the  affirmative.  Indianapolis  has  a  population 
largely  American;  it  is  the  capital  of  the  state  and  is  known 
as  a  city  of  churches. 

When  the  concentrated  scheme  was  adopted,  the  citi- 
zens organized  a  reform  association  of  nearly  1,000  members. 
With  the  new  charter,  a  number  of  reforms  were  also  adopted 
which  aimed  at  the  root  of  municipal  evils,  such  as  civil  rules, 
and  separation  of  national  and  city  elections.  The  Indianap- 
olis charter  of  1891,  therefore,  started  under  ideal  condi- 
tions. 

Under  the  new  charter  three  mayors  have  been  chosen, 
Sullivan,  Denny,  and  Taggart,  all  morally  weak,  and  nar- 
rowly partisan,  who  shamefully  abused  the  power  intrusted  to 
them. 

The  charter  provides  for  appointments  under  civil  service 
rules,  "which  no  honorable  officer  would  for  a  moment  think 
of  disregarding."      Yet  Sullivan   entirely  ignored   these  rules 


83 

and  filled  the  offices  for  personal  and  partisan  gain.  Before 
election  he  employed  three  times  the  needed  number  in  city 
labor,  and  let  gambling  houses  and  saloons  run  in  open  viola- 
tion of  law. 

Mayor  Denny  followed  the  course  of  his  predecessor.  He 
utterly  disregarded  the  civil  service  provision  of  the  charter, 
run  the  city  in  the  interests  of  his  party,  and  consequently 
gave  a  corrupt  and  inefficient  administration.  So  inefficient 
in  fact  that  the  department  of  public  works  was  investigated 
by  a  committee  of  the  council,  revealing  gross  inefficiency 
and  corruption  in  the  granting  of  contracts  and  execution  of 
public  work.  A  committe  of  the  board  of  trade  found  the 
same  inefficiency  in  the  fire  department. 

Mayor  Taggart,  the  present  mayor,  is  the  climax  of  the 
weak  mayors  of  Indianapolis.  He  is  much  worse  than  his 
predecessors.  Under  his  administration  the  civil  service 
sunk  so  low  that  an  investigation  by  the  Indiana  civil  service 
commission  resulted.  The  report  of  the  commission  does  not 
generalize  upon  the  corruption  but  bristles  with  numerous 
specific  cases. 

The  charter  provides  that  officers  shall  be  removed  only  for 
cause;  yet  the  investigating  committee  found  a  wholesale 
removal  of  officers  for  "inefficiency,"  who  were  in  every  case 
replaced  by  Taggart  partisans. 

The  committee  summed  up  the  result  of  its  investigation 
in  these  words,  the  foregoing  facts  *'show  to  your  committee 
that  the  best  interests  of  the  city  are  being  disregarded  for 
personal  and  party  considerations."  Good  city  government 
demands  experienced  heads  of  departments,  yet  Indianapolis, 
like  Brooklyn,  has  suffered  from  continual  change  of  the 
higher  administrative  officers. 

Says  the  editor  of  the  Indianapolis  News :  "We  have  never 
had  a  competent  city  engineer  and  the  blundering  work  this 
incompetence  has  cost  u<:  is  to  be  estimated  by  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  dollars." 

The  experience  with  the  affirmative  system  in  Indianapolis 
proves  conclusively  that  mere  change  of  system  cannot  rem- 
edy our  municipal  ills. 


84 

"Boston's  charter,"  says  Ex-Mayor  Matthews,  "is  a  more 
consistent  application  of  the  theory  of  executive  responsibil- 
ity than  can  be  found  in  any  organic  law  cf  any  other  large 
city  in  this  country."  Yet  the  people  have  elected  mayor 
after  mayor,  under  this  charter,  who  have  disappointed  every 
hope  of  the  reformers.  The  first  four  years  under  the  cen- 
tralized system,  it  cost  Boston  $5,000,000  more  to  conduct 
the  business  of  the  city  than  for  the  four  years  previous  under 
a  council  system,  yet  the  debt  increased  as  rapidly,  and  less 
was  expended  for  public  improvements.  City  employes  were 
hired  at  more  than  the  market  rate  and  the  greatest  frauds  in 
executive  contracts  perpetrated. 

Hon.  L.  B.  Tuckerman  of  Cleveland  says:  "I  was  strongly 
in  favor  of  the  federal  plan  until  we  had  it,  and  now  I  am 
inclined  to  regard  it  as  bad  as  the  old  system  in  its  actual 
workings."  An  investigation  in  Cleveland  lately,  revealed 
the  same  defects  there  as  are  found  in  other  places.  Says 
the  committee  of  investigation:  "Even  the  federal  plan  has 
not  brought  about  the  application  of  strict  business  methods 
in  the  conduct  of  city  affairs." 

Cincinnati  has  been  still  worse.  Speaking  of  the  charter 
of  that  city  before  the  conference  for  good  city  government, 
Mr.  Wilby  said:  "It  is  claimed  that  the  law  was  a  step  for- 
ward because  it  reposed  greater  power  in  the  mayor,  but  we 
have  the  same  sort  of  mayor  now  that  we  habitually  had  be- 
fore the  law  was  passed."    Boss  Cox  still  reigns  in  Cincinnati. 

Philadelphia,  since  the  adoption  of  its  concentrated  system 
in  1887,  has  been  as  corrupt  as  any  city  in  America.  In  re- 
gard to  the  Philadelphia  charter,  Hon.  Herbert  Welsh,  of 
that  city,  says.  "We  have  had  the  most  complete  failure  in 
practical  results.  The  city  has  been  under  the  control  of  cor- 
rupt politicians,  administration  has  been  wasteful  and  extrav- 
agant, and  the  civil  service  rules  have,  in  the  hands  of  officers 
who  did  not  care  to  enforce  them,  been  practically  a  dead 
letter." 


85 

The  affirmative  stated  that  Philadelphia  has  good  city  gov- 
ernment, but,  gentlemen,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
Philadelphia  is  the  worst  governed  city  in  America. 

Writes  D.  G.  Fanno,  managing  editor  of  the  Philadelphia 
Tunes:  "The  practical  working  of  the  new  law  has  not  been 
satisfactory.  This  would  probably  be  an  ideal  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  cities  if  the  people  would  elect  an  ideal  mayor; 
but  unfortunately  our  elections  are  controlled  by  a  corrupt 
machine,  who  by  controlling  the  nominations  at  the  primary 
elections  always  place  their  own  creatures  in  power.  This 
has  been  the  experience  in  Philadelphia  and  under  the  new 
system  we  have  had  the  most  corrupt  and  most  extravagant 
government  ever  known  in  our  history." 

Before  the  senatorial  investigating  commissioners,  Geo. 
McAneny,  secretary  of  the  New  York  Civil  Service  Reform 
Association,  said  Philadelphia  was  the  worst  place  in  the 
country  from  a  reformer's  standpoint. 

The  affirmative  claimed  the  government  of  Philadelphia 
economical.  Ex. -Gov.  Patteson  says:  **The  expenditures 
of  the  government  of  Philadelphia  for  the  year  1894  were 
$32, 190,000  an  average  per  capita  for  each  voter  of  $150. 
For  the  year  1887,  the  first  year  under  the  new  charter  they 
were  $17,638,304.  For  this  enormous  increase  it  is  venturing 
nothing  to  say  no  adequate  return  has  been  received.  Prom- 
ises of  better  and  cheaper  gas,  of  purer  and  more  abundant 
water,  of  splendid  street  improvements  and  other  public  ben- 
efactions, have  been  clamorously  kept  to  the  ear  and  have 
been  persistently  broken  to  the  hope.  Improvrdent  contracts 
have  wasted  the  substance  of  the  people.  Lavish  salaries 
have  rewarded  placemen,  holding  sinecures,  while  20,000 
school  children  are  to-day  denied  fit  accommodations.  The 
various  departments  of  the  city  government  and  their  armies 
of  employes  have  injuriously  interfered  to  control  the  politics 
of  the  city.  Municipal  officers  have  betrayed  their  trust  to 
the  great  shame  of  the  city  and  to  the  loss  of  millions  of  the 
public   moneys.       Profligacy  has  quickly  succeeded  extrava- 


86 

gance    and  the  revenues  of  the  people  have  beconie  the  spoils 
of  the  unscrupulous." 

There  is  no  interest  in  municipal  affairs  in  Philadelphia. 
From  Bryce  American  Commonwealth,  vol.  I,  p.  102,  I  take 
this  quotation:  "A  trustworthy  correspondent  writes  to  me 
from  Philadelphia  (1894),  'There  is  probably  an  average  of 
150  republican  voters  to  an  election  district.  The  average 
attendance  at  primaries  is  said  to  be  about  twelve,  which  is 
approximately  the  number  of  party  servants  necessary  to  man- 
age the  meeting  under  party  rules."  Yet  the  republican  party 
rules  Philadelphia!  I  have  here  the  citizens  municipal  asso- 
ciation reports  of  Philadelphia,  which  are  nothing  but  records 
of  corruption  in  that  city.  They  have  just  finished  the  Queen 
Lane  Reservoir  at  a  cost  of  $1,500,000,  and  yet  the  authori- 
ties do  not  dare  to  fill  it  with  water.      It  won't  hold  water. 

Yet  the  affirmative  do  not  admit  evils  under  their  system. 
You  will  observe,  Hon.  Judges,  that  the  cities  in  the  United 
States,  which  have  the  poorest  government — Boston,  New 
York,  Brooklyn,  Philadelphia,  Indianapolis  and  Cincinnati — 
have  a  mayor  with  extensive  powers,  while  many  cities  where 
the  council  is  powerful,  as  Minneapolis,  St.  Louis,  Buffalo 
and  Atlanta,  are  having  good  city  government. 

You  will  observe,  also,  Hon.  Jurors,  that  the  mayor  has 
abused  the  power  placed  in  his  hands,  to  as  great,  if  not 
greater  extent,  than  the  councils  have  abused  their  power. 
According  to  the  affirmative  logic,  power  should  be  taken 
from  the  mayor  and  given  to  the  council. 

In  considering  a  change  of  charters  in  our  larger  cities,  we 
should  not  overlook  the  fact  that  city  government  in  all  parts 
of  the  United  States  the  last  ten  years  has  .been  constantly 
improving. 

Prof.  Bryce  says:  "No  one  who  has  studied  municipal  gov- 
ernment in  the  United  States  the  last  twenty-five  years  will 
doubt  that  there  is  a  decided  improvement."  Hon.  Seth  Low 
says:  "There  is  substantial  reason  for  thinking  that  the  gen- 
eral tendency  even    in   larger  cities  is  toward   improvement." 


87 

Says  Dr.  Albert  Shaw:    "The  worst  things   in  American  mu- 
nicipal government  are  undoubtedly  behind." 

This  improvement  is  apparent  from  the  great  number  of  re- 
form associations  which  are  educating  the  people  to  a  better 
understanding  of  municipal  problems.  We  have  better  elec- 
tion laws  than  we  had,  schools  are  better,  population  more 
stable,  and  more  intelligent  men  are  giving  a  portion  of  their 
time  to  the  welfare  of  the  city. 

This  improvement  is  noticable  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States  under  all  kinds  of  charters. 

It  has  been  no  greater  in  cities  under  the  affirmative  sys- 
tem than  under  other  systems. 

The  system  supported  by  the  affirmative  is  not  a  logical 
application  of  concentration.  The  theory  of  concentration  is 
to  vest  power  in  a  single  person,  so  that  responsibility  maybe 
undivided,  but  the  affirmative  system  leaves  the  council  joint 
powers  with  the  executive.  The  affirmative  assume  it  impos- 
sible to  choose  a  good  council,  yet  leave  with  the  council 
power  to  veto  all  licenses  and  franchises,  and  power  to  de- 
crease the  estimates  made  by  the  executive — enough  powers  to 
destroy  the  theory  of  executive  responsibility  which  concen- 
tration aims  to  secure. 

The  affirmative  system  is  also  a  tendency  in  the  wrong  di- 
rection. The  father  of  that  system.  Hon.  Seth  Low,  says: 
"No  one  will  contend  that  this  (concentration  of  power)  is 
the  ultimate  or  ideal  condition  of  affairs."  If  it  is  not  the 
"ultimate  or  ideal  condition,"  then  we  say  that  a  change  to 
such  a  system  must  be  only  temporary,  and  would  place  us 
years  behind  in  the  development  of  our  municipal  govern- 
ment. 

England,  Scotland,  and  Canada,  countries  that  have  solved 
the  question  of  municipal  government,  all  have  worked  in  the 
opposite  direction. 

Says  H.  W.  Williams:  "A  city  exists  to  protect  the  health, 
life,  property,  and  persons  of  its  citizens,  to  furnish  them 
with   light,    water,    and  transportation,    to  maintain   streets, 


88 

alleys,  and  public  parks.  Some  corporate  body  must  deter- 
mine how  and  at  what  cost  these  various  ends  are  to  be 
attained.  To  bestow  this  power  on  the  mayor,  to  have  him 
not  only  execute  but  enact  the  laws,  is  not  only  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  our  institutions  but  would  be  absurd." 

The  remedy  proposed  by  the  afifirmative  is  superficial.  It 
was  the  first  impulse  of  certain  reformers,  but  it  does  not  go 
at  the  root  of  the  evil.  When  these  reformers  began  to  look 
for  a  remedy  for  municipal  ills,  they  saw  a  council  with  large 
powers.  They  jumped  at  the  conclusion  that  if  the  powers 
were  taken  from  the  council  it  would  improve  the  govern- 
ment. They  did  not  see  that  a  poor  council  was  an  effect 
and  not  a  cause;  they  did  not  see  that  if  the  mayor  had  pos- 
sessed the  power,  the  evils  would  have  been  found  in  the  ex- 
ecutive department;  they  did  not  profit  by  the  experience  of 
every  civilized  country  on  the  globe  in  trusting  the  council 
with  large  powers;  and  they  did  not  take  into  consideration 
the  ideals  of  the  American  people. 

The  concentration  of  power  in  one  man  was  the  first  im- 
pulse, but  the  sober  second  thought  has  brought  a  reaction. 
The  great  New  York  commission  in  1890,  which  made  the 
most  thorough  investigation  ever  made  into  municipal  gov- 
ernment, reported  against  concentration. 

The  greatest  municipal  reformers  oppose  the  change.  Dr. 
Albert  Shaw,  Dr.  Richard  T.  Ely,  James  C.  Carter,  presi- 
dent of  the  National  Municipal  League,  Dr.  Parkhurst — the 
greatest  authorities  on  this  subject  in  the  United  States — are 
opposed  to  such  a  system.  They  oppose  it  because  in  theory 
it  is  superficial,  in  practice  a  failure. 

To  summarize:  we  have  shown  that  the  evils  of  city  gov- 
ernment in  the  United  States  cannot  be  remedied  simply  by 
legislation;  that  they  are  due  to  causes  more  fundamental; 
causes  such  as  crowding  of  cities  by  a  marvelous  growth,  un- 
desirable immigration,  abuse  of  suffrage  and  naturalization; 
to  the  confusion  of  national  and  city  politics,  the  influence  of 
^corrupt  money  power,  the  constant  interference   of  the  state 


89 

in  local  affairs,  the  lack  of  administrative  knowledge;  and 
finally  to  the  apathy  and  indifference  of  our  best  citizens  to 
the  welfare  of  our  municipalities. 

We  have  pointed  out  the  common  error  of  constantly  de- 
pending upon  legislation  for  reform. 

We  have  shown  the  difificulty  under  present  conditions  of 
securing  a  mayor,  morally  and  intellectually  great  enough  to 
fulfil  the  demands  of  their  system,  and  that  such  difficulty 
has  been  found  in  practice. 

We  have  shown  the  dangerous  power  this  system  throws 
into  the  hands  of  a  corrupt  man. 

We  have  shown  that  under  this  ''one  man  system,"  the 
council  must  degenerate  into  a  mere  rudimentary  body,  and 
the  most  useful  and  democratic  part  of  our  city  government 
become  a  clog  upon  our  municipal  machinery. 

Further,  we  have  shown  that  the  council  is  more  in  touch 
with  the  people  than  one  man  can  hope  to  be;  that  through 
its  discussion  and  recorded  vote  the  council  secures  publicity 
and  corresponding  responsibility,  which  the  secret  and  speedy 
action  of  one  man  cannot  secure;  that  the  council  represents 
all  parties,  all  factions,  and  all  shades  of  opinion  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  public  affairs;  that  it  furnishes  a  place  for  a 
large  and  growing  number  of  educated  men  in  the  municipal 
service. 

We  have  shown  that  the  proposed  system  is,  at  best,  a 
temporary  measure,  is  inconsistent,  and  a  tendency  in  the 
wrong  direction.  We  have  shown  that  concentration  has 
failed  to  arouse  civic  pride  and  failed  to  give  good  govern- 
ment. 

We  have  shown  that  it  has  not  proven  a  remedy  in  Brook- 
lyn, New  York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Cleveland,  Quincy  and 
Indianapolis.  In  brief,  we  have  proven  that  nothing  is  to 
be  gained  by  the  change.  Finally  we  have  shown  that  the 
remedy  for  our  municipal  ills  lies  in  the  separation  of  national 
and  local  politics,  a  pure  civil  service,  home  rule  for  cities, 
and  the  education  of  the  people  to  higher  ideals  of  city  gov- 


90 

ernment.  We  have  shown  that  many  of  the  conditions  which 
prevent  these  reforms  are  passing  away. 

The  affirmative  propose  to  vest  in  one  man,  all  executive 
and  administrative  power  of  our  cities,  the  control  of  appro- 
priations and  the  initiation  of  all  public  works — they  propose 
to  make  one  man  the  city  government.  A  great  burden 
rested  upon  them  to  prove  beyond  a  doubt  that  such  a  radical 
change  should  be  made.  To  have  maintained  their  proposi- 
tion they  should  have  shown:  first,  good  reason  why  the 
ninety-five  cities  included  should  change  the  charters  under 
which  they  are  now  operating;  second,  they  should  have  shown 
that  the  change  should  go  as  far  as  the  system  they  advocate. 

To  have  proven  the  first  proposition, — to  have  shown  why 
a  change  should  be  made  in  all  cities  in  the  United  States 
from  forty  thousand  to  three  million  inhabitants  —  they 
should  have  shown  serious  evils  in  the  government  of  these 
cities. 

But  the  greatest  evils  of  city  government  are  found  in  the 
larger  cities,  which  have  to  a  great  extent  concentrated  sys- 
tems. Moreover  these  evils  are  only  temporary  and  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Albert  Shaw,  Hon.  Seth  Low,  and  Prof.  Bryce, 
are  rapidly  passing  away. 

Even  should  they  have  proven  cities  above  40,000  inhabi- 
tants poorly  governed,  before  they  could  have  concluded  that 
these  cities  should  change  their  form  of  government,  they 
should  have  traced  the  evils  directly  to  the  charter. 

This  they  have  failed  to  do;  for  we  have  shown  that  there 
are  at  least  ten  fundamental  causes  to  which  poor  city  gov- 
ernment is  due;  second  because  we  have  shown  that  cities  all 
over  the  United  States  are  well  or  poorly  governed  regardless 
of  the  form  of  their  charters.  And  third,  because  they  could 
not  explain  the  improvement  of  city  government  the  last  ten 
years  regardless  of  the  charters  under  which  cities  are  oper- 
ating. Have  they,  then,  n,ot  failed  to  prove  their  first  propo- 
sition.^ 


91 

Suppose,  however,  they  should  have  proven  that  cities 
over  40,000  inhabitants  have  poor  government,  and  that  this 
poor  government  is  due  to  the  charter  under  which  they  are 
operating,  they  still  had  left  the  greatest  step  in  their  proof — 
to  have  shown  their  system  the  remedy. 

To  have  proven  this  proposition  they  should  have  shown: 
first,  that  the  present  system,  with  the  reforms  we  have  sug- 
gested, is  not -capable  of  remedying  the  evils  they  have 
pointed  out. 

But  we  have  gone  beyond  our  mere  duty,  analyzed  the 
causes  of  poor  city  government,  and  given  affirmative  argu- 
ments showing  how  the  evils  can  be  overcome  with  these  re- 
forms. The  precedent  of  every  civilized  country  refutes  the 
idea  that  there  is  any  inherent  weakness  in  government  by 
councils. 

Second,  to  have  proven  their  system  the  remedy,  they 
should  have  shown  it  a  permanent  system,  capable  of  adapt- 
ing itself  to  democratic  conditions,  and  not  as  we  have  pointed 
out,  a  temporary  measure  of  relief.  Third,  and  most  import- 
ant, to  have  proven  their  system  the  remedy,  they  should 
have  shown  that  in  practice  it  has  been  able  to  stem  the  tide 
of  municipal  corruption.  Have  they  not  failed  to  prove  this 
important  point  and  thus  failed  to  establish  their  second  prop- 
osition.? Have  they  explained  Mayors  Whitney,  Boody, 
Chapin  and  Wurster  under  the  Brooklyn  charter,  and  the  fail- 
ure in  Quincy,  Cleveland,  Boston,  Philadelphia  and  Cincin- 
nati.? Have  they  explained  the  corrupt  government  of  Indian- 
apolis, and  Tammany's  hold  upon  New  York.?  Has  their  sys- 
tem not  shown  the  same  evils  as  the   system   they  condemn.? 

But  conditions  in  every  one  of  the  cities  should  have  greatly 
improved,  for  conditions  in  all  cities  have  greatly  improved. 
They  should  have  shown  that  the  improvement  in  cities  with 
a  concentrated  system  has  been  greater  than  in  cities  under 
other  systems.  In  showing  this  they  should  not  have  confused 
what  the  charters  have  done,  and  what  has  been  done  by 
great  reforms  quite  independent  of  the  charter.  Have  they 
considered  these  elements? 


92 

Even  should  they  have  shown  it  a  success  in  one  of  the 
cities  where  it  has  been  tried,  would  it  prove  anything  for 
different  cities  under  different  conditions? 

If  we  have  succeeded  in  overthrowing  any  one  of  the  ar- 
guments that  go  to  establish  their  conclusion,  we  are  entitled 
to  your  verdict.  The  legitimate  duty  of  the  affirmative  was 
to  prove  their  system  not  equal  to,  but  better  than  the  nega- 
tive system,  and  to  prove  this  beyond  a  doubt. 

In  conclusion:  the  affirmative  should  have  shown  strong 
cause  for  action,  because  of  evils  of  our  cities,  due  to  the 
charters;  and  they  should  have  shown  that  a  change  as  radi- 
cal as  they  propose  is  the  remedy. 

Gentlemen,  in  the  face  of  the  evidence  we  have  produced, 
have  they  established  these  two  propositions.'* 


OTTO   BOSSHARD 

THREE  niNUTE  REBUTTAL 


Worthy  jurors,  once  more  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  character  of  their  argument.  They  have  based  it  from 
beginning  to  end  on  general  statements.  We  have  substan- 
tiated every  proposition  with  specific  facts  from  official  rec- 
ords and  reports.  They  have  quoted  individuals.  We  have 
quoted  commissions. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  city  of  Brooklyn,  concerning  whose 
government  they  have  found  so  much  to  deplore.  I  simply 
want  to  ask  you  gentlemen  does  it  seem  plausible,  that  if  the 
government  of  Brooklyn  through  all  these  years  has  been  in 
the  wretched  condition  which  the  negative  claim  it  has  been, 
and  if  this  condition  is  a  result  of  the  workings  of  our  char- 
ter,— I  ask  you,  does  it  stand  to  reason  that  men  who  now 
compose  the  Greater  New  York  Commission,  men  who  have 
lived  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn  all  their  lives  and  who  ought 
to  know  the  true  condition  of  that  city,  I  ask  you,  does  it 
stand  to  reason  that  these  same  men,  should  insist  in  propos- 
ing a  charter  for  Greater  New  York  nearly  identical  with  that 
of  Brooklyn,  if  as  the  negative  claim,  it  has  worked  so  un- 
successfully, there.?  No,  gentlemen,  the  very  fact  that  the 
charter  of  Greater  New  York  was  modelled  after  that  of 
Brooklyn  is  the  strongest  possible  argument  in  behalf  of  our 
system. 

The  last  speaker  with  his  charts  on  elections  attempted  to 
disprove  the  argument  of  my  colleague,  regarding  the  added 
interest  in  elections  following  the  adoption  of  our  system. 
He  took  the  difference  in  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  presi- 
dent and  in  the  number  of  those  cast  for  mayor  in  the  various 
cities.  He  showed  that  this  difference  was  just  as  large  in 
our  cities  as  it  was  in  cities  governed  by  the  council  system. 
In  some  of  our  cities  he  showed  that   this   difference  in  votes 

[93] 


94 

was  increasing,  thereby  leaving  you  to  infer  that  the  number 
of  ''stay  at  home  voters"  increases,  or  in  other  words,  that  in- 
terest in  municipal  elections,  under  the  federal  system  ac- 
tually declines.  Again  I  maintain  that  the  only  just  method 
of  comparison  is  by  comparing  the  size  of  the  vote  cast  for 
mayor,  before  and  after  the  adoption  of  the  new  system  as  was 
done  by  my  colleague.  But  even  accepting  the  gentleman's 
own  figures  as  he  has  presented  them,  they  simply  emphasize 
more  strongly  the  truth  of  my  colleague's  argument.  I  have 
only  time  to  call  your  attention  to  two  of  his  charts  but  they 
all  illustrate  the  same  point.  If  you  will  observe  his  chart  of 
election  statistics  for  the  cities  of  Boston  and  Milwaukee  you 
will  find  that  the  number  of  "stay  at  home  voters"  in  the  mu- 
nicipal elections  of  Milwaukee  is  never  less  than  21,000  while 
in  Boston,  this  number  has  never  exceeded  8,000.  This 
shows  the  contrast  between  the  two  systems.  Boston  with 
double  the  population  has  on  the  average  only  one- third  as 
many ''stay  at  home  voters"  as  has  Milwaukee.  Yet  Milwaukee 
is  governed  by  the  council,  while  Boston  is  governed  by  the 
federal  system.  Need  there  he  any  further  argument  to  con- 
vince you  that  the  people  manifest  greater  interest  in  city  af- 
fairs under  our  system  than  under  the  present,? 

Remember,  gentlemen,  our  cities  must  operate  under  some 
system  of  government.  The  question  is, — shall  they  be  gov- 
erned by  the  present  chaotic,  complex  and  unbusinesslike 
system, — a  system  responsible  for  the  deplorable  condition  of 
our  cities, — or  shall  they  be  governed  by  the  federal  plan — a 
system  based  on  sound  principles  of  government,  and  one 
which  has  worked  an  improvement  wherever  tried. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The  ''Bibliography  of  Municipal  Administration  and  City 
Affairs,"  published  by  the  Reform  Club  of  New  York  last 
month,  is  so  complete,  and  so  well  arranged  that  another 
bibliography  on  the  general  subject  of  municipal  government 
is  wholly  unnecessary  at  this  time. 

There  is  nothing  bearing  solely  and  definitely  upon  the 
question  discussed  in  the  preceding  pages.  What  has  been 
written  on  the  subject  is  scattered  through  books,  magazine 
articles,  pamphlets,  and  reports,  on  other  subjects.  In  the 
following  bibliography  we  shall  mention  the  literature  which 
will  aid  the  student  most  in  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  the  ques- 
tion. A  system  of  concentration  more  or  less  resembling  the 
one  proposed  in  the  question  discussed  is  found  in  Brooklyn, 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Indi- 
anapolis, Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,  Evansville,  Ind.,  and  Quincy, 
Mass.  City  reports,  correspondence,  newspapers,  and  mu- 
nicipal league  reports  are  the  sources  of  information  concern- 
ing the  success  of  the  system.  The  most  valuable  of  these 
are  the  reports  of  the  various  reform  associations.  A  brief 
biolography  is  given  on  each  of  these  cities. 

For  the  benefit  of  those  desiring  information  on  other 
phases  of  the  municipal  question,  we  have  given  references  to 
the  various  bibliographies  on  municipal  government  which 
have  lately  appeared.  Only  the  principal  works  on  the  gen- 
eral subject  of  municipal  government  are  included  in  the  re- 
mainder of  the  bibliography. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES  ON  nUNICIPAL  GOVERNnENT 

A  Bibliography  of  Municipal  Administration  and  City  Condition.  By  Rob- 
ert C.  Brooks.  Paper,  i2mo.,  pp.  233,  New  York:  Reform  Club,  52  William 
Street.   50  cents. 

This  is  the  most  complete  bibliography  that  has  ever  been  compiled  and  cov- 
ers all  the  works  included  in  others,  bringing   the  references  down  to  March, 

[95] 


96 

i897-      It   contains  about   6,000    entries,    covering    foreign   literature    as  well' 

as  American.     The  literature  on  every  municipal  problem  is  included. 

Bibliography  of  Municipal  Reform.      Thomas  E.  Will,  Arena,  10:555.   (1894). 

Bibliography  of  Political  Corruption.  Thomas  E.  Will,  Arena,  10:  845. 
(1894). 

Bibliography  of  Parks  and  Play  Grounds.  Thomas  E.  Will,  Arena,  10:  274. 
(1894). 

Bibliography  on  Public  Baths:  A  Study  on  Public  Baths,  New  York  Associa- 
tion for  Improvement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Poor.      1895. 

Reference  Lists  of  Works  Relating  to  Municipal  Government.  Frank  E.  Wood- 
ward, Maiden,  1887.  pp.  4. 

Bibliography  of  Municipal  Government  and  Municipal  Reform.  Proceedings  of 
the  First  National  Conference  for  Good  City  Government.      1894. 

Bibliography  of  Municipal  Government  in  the  United  States.  Prof.  Frank  A. 
Hodder,  Kansas  University  Quarterly,  i:  179-96.  1893.  Same  in  Cor- 
nell University  Library  Bulletin  Vol.  IL      1888. 

City  Government.  Syllabus  of  six  lectures,  John  R.  Commons,  J.  Beckett,. 
Greencastle,  Ind. 

CONCENTRATION  OF  POWER— THEORY 

Adams,  Charles  Francis: 

Municipal  Government.     Lessons  from  the  Experience  of  Quincy,  Mass. 

Forum,  14:  282.   (1892). 
Quincy,  Mass.      "The  Centennial   Milestone."     Cambridge,    Mass.     John 
Wilson  &  Sons.      1892. 
Avery,  Elroy  M.  : 

"Federal   Plan  of    Municipal  Government    as  Illustrated    by    the  City  of 
Cleveland."     South  Bethlehem,  Pa.    1892.      15  pp.     Same  in   Lehigh 
Quarterly,  June,  1892,  Vol.  2,  No.  3. 
Bradford,  Gamaliel: 

"Our  Failure  in    Municipal    Government."     Scribner's  M.,  2:  485.      1887. 
Our  Failure  in   Municipal   Government.     Annals  Am.   Acad.   Pol.  Sci.   3: 
691.      1883. 
Bryce,  James: 

American  Commonwealth,  3rd  Ed.     1895.   N.  Y.,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  Chap. 
50,  51  and  52. 
BuLLiT,  John  C.  : 

"Form  of  Government  for  Philadelphia,"     Address  before   Philadelphia 
Social  Science  Association  January,  1882.    Philadelphia.     Allen,  Lane 
&  Scott.    1882.  42  pp. 
CooLEY,  E.  A. : 

Democracy  and  City  Government.     Cosmopolitan,  14:737.   1893.    (Against 
concentration.) 
Field,  David  Dudley: 

Reforms  Needed  in  Municipal  Government.    Albany  Law  Journal,  48;  355. 
1883. 


97 

FisK,  John: 

Civil  Government  in  the  United  States.     Boston.    1890.  Chapter  V. 
Gardner,  Rathbone: 

"Municipal  Reform  Projects."     Advance  Club  Publications.    Providence, 
R.  I.   1891. 
Gladden,  Washington: 

"The  Government  of  Cities."     Century,  49:  155.     November,  1894. 
GoDKiN,  E.  L. : 

Municipal  Caesarism.     Nation,  13:  205.    1871. 
Aldermen  and  their  Appointments.     Nation,  38:  158.   1884. 
Problems  of  City  Government.     Ann.    American  Academy  Political   Sci- 
ence, 4:  857.   1894. 
GooDNOw,  Frank  J. : 

Comparative  Administrative  Law.     New  York.     Putnam's,  1893.  2  vols. 

Vol.  I,  p.  193. 
Municipal  Problems.     McMillan  &  Co.,  1897. 
Low,  Seth: 

Chapter  52,  Bryce  American  Commonwealth.    "American  View  of  Munici- 
pal Government  in  the  United  States." 
Problems   of    Municipal    Government.      Address   at   Cornell    University, 

March,  1887.     Printed  by  University. 
Obstacles  to  Good  City  Government.     Forum,  5:  260.    1888. 
The  Problem  of  City  Government  in  the  United   States.   Outlook,  53:  624. 
April  4,  1896. 
Mr.  Low  is  a  strong  advocate  of  concentration,  and  his  presentation  of  the 
case  is  the  best. 
Mac  Veagh,  Franklin: 

A  Program  of  Municipal  Reform.     Am.  Jour.  Sociology,  March,  1896. 
Shepard,  H.  N.  : 

The  Mayor  and  the  City.     Atlantic,  74:  85.   1894. 
Simpson,  D.  F.  : 

Municipal   Government    of    Minneapolis.     Proceedings   Second   National 
Conference  for  Good   City  Government,     p.  93.     Philadelphia.  1895. 
(Against  concentration.) 
WiLLLiAMS,  Henry  W.  : 

"Reform  of  Our  Municipal  Councils,"  p.  236.  Third  National  Confer- 
ence for  Good  City  Government. 
The  question  of  concentration  of  power  in  the  mayor  is  discussed  incidentally 
in  the  papers  on  the  municipal  conditions  of  various  cities,  read  before  the 
Philadelphia,  Cleveland,  Minneapolis,  and  Baltimore  Conferences  for  Good 
City  Government.  The  proceedings  of  all  of  the  conferences  have  been  pub- 
lished by  the  National  Municipal  League.     Address  514  Walnut  street. 

Other  articles  on  the  question  of  concentration,  with  special  reference  to 
practice,  are  found  below,  under  the  different  cities  under  that  system. 
7— J.D. 


CONCENTRATION  IN  PRACTICE. 

BROOKLYN. 

"Brooklyn  and  Philadelphia."     E.  L.  Godkin.     Nation,  42:   140.     1886. 

"The  Brooklyn  Idea  of  City  Government."  Edward  M.  Shepard.  Forum, 
16:  38.     1893. 

"City  Government  of  Brooklyn."     City  Gov't,  i:  77.     1896. 

"Municipal  Government  of  Brooklyn."  W.  G.  Low.  First  Nat.  Conf.  Good 
City  Gov't,  p.  72. 

"Organized  Misgovernment."     Sidney  Reid.    Harper's  Weekly,  38:  326.   1894. 

"Report  of  the  Affairs  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn  and  County  of  Kings,  Prelim- 
inary."    N.  Y.  Assembly  Docs.,  82,  1887.   10  pp. 

"Report  of  the  Commission  to  Revise  all  Laws  Affecting  the  City  of  Brooklyn." 
N.  Y.  Assembly  Docs.,  77,  1887.    206  pp. 

"Report  in  the  matter  of  the  Brooklyn  Investigation."  N.  Y.  Assembly  Doc, 
no,  1887.    80  pp.     Minority  Report  Doc. ,  m,  1887.     20  pp. 

New  York  Evening  Post,  Aug.  4,  1894.     Interview  with  Mayor  Schieren. 

Good  Government.  Official  Journal  of  the  National  Civil  Service  Reform 
League:    54  Williams  St. 

BOSTON. 

City  Government  of  Boston.  J.  M.  Bugbee.  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  vol.  V,  3. 
1887. 

Municipal  League  of  Boston.  Samuel  B.  Capen.  Am.  Journal  of  Politics,  5: 
I.     1894. 

Cost  and  Methods  of  Street  Cleaning  in  Boston.  J.  Assoc.  Eng,  Soc.  p.  433. 
Aug..  1892. 

Home  Rule  for  American  Cities.  Ellis  P.  Oberhaltzer.  Ann.  Am.  Acad.,  3: 
736. 

Report  of  Committee  of  City  Charter.     City  Doc's  120,  146,  147.     1884. 

Annual  Reports  of  Citizen's  Association.      1889-1893.      Printed  by  Association. 

The  City  Government  of  Boston.     Nathan.  Matthews,    Jr.,    mayor  of  Boston, 
1891-5.     pp.  288.     Boston:  Rockwell  &  Churchill.     1895. 
(A  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  on  municipal  government.) 

Publication  Municipal  League  of  Boston. 

Moorfield  Story,  p.  61.  First  National  Conference  for  Good  City  Govern- 
ment. 

CINCINNATI. 

There  has  been  scarcely  anything  published   on    Cincinnati.      The  only  pos- 
sible information  is  through  personal  investigation  or  correspondence. 
"Municipal  Conditions  of  Cincinnati"  by  Chas.  B.  Wilby.     p.  313  proceedings 

of  the  Second  Nat'l  Conf.  for  Good  City  Gov't. 
Plain  Municipal  Lessons  from  Cincinnati  Chaut.    12:  383.      1891. 

CLEVELAND. 

Annual  Report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  1896.       "The  Business  Man- 
agement of  a  Great  City.'  by  Win.  L.  Strong  of  New  York,     p.  132. 
"Civic  Pride"  by  Mayor  Robert  S.  McKisson  of  Cleveland. 


99 

Cleveland's  Plan  of  Government.     Julian  Ralph.     Harper's  W'k'ly  39:  829. 
Federal  Plan  as  Illustrated  by  the  City  of  Cleveland.      Elroy  M.  Avery.      (See 

under  General.) 
Chapter  on  the  History  of  Cleveland.     C.  M.  Burton,  Detroit.      Burton.      pp. 

31.     1895. 
Cleveland's  Municipal  Service.     Cleveland  Leader,  Jan.  22.     1896. 

INDIANAPOLIS. 

Municipal  Conditions  of  Indianapolis.     Lucius  B.  Swift,  p.  374,  Proceedings  of 

2nd  Nat.  Conf.  for  Good  City  Gov't. 
The  Civil  Service  Chronicle.     Edited  by  Lucius  B,  Swift,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

1891-96.     Especially  Nov;,  1895. 
Annual  Reports  of  the  Commercial  Club  of  Indianapolis. 

NEW    YORK. 

New  Aldermen.     E.  S.  Nadal,  Forum,  2:49.     1886. 

Comparison  as  to  Cost  of  Administration  in  New  York  and  Berlin  Real  Estate 

Record  and  Guide  Nov.  10.     1884.     p.  673. 
Citizens  and  Oflficials  of  N.  Y.  City,  "Their  Rights  and  Duties  According  to  Law, 

together  with  a  Popular  Description  of  all  Departments  of  the  City  Gov- 
ernment."    Brooklyn  Leader  Pub.  House,  1895.     109  PP-.  25c. 
^'Consolidation  Act,  The  N.  Y.  City."     Mark  Ash,  Albany,  Weed,  Parsons  & 

Co.,  1890,  (contains  all   the  old  Eng.  charters  of  N.  Y.,  and   the  present 

charter  and  ordinances). 
On  Municipal   Corruption  in  New  York.     Dr.  Chas.  H.  Parkhurst,  Our  Day, 

9:  451.     (1892). 
Criminal  Degradation  of  N.  Y.  Citizenship.     John  B.  Leavitt,  Forum,  17:  659. 

(1894). 
"Franchises  of  New  York,  A  Chapter  of  Municipal  Folly."     A.  C.  Bernheim, 

Century,  50:  149.      1895, 
Municipal   Government   of   New   York.     Edmund   Kelly,  p.  103    First   Nat'l. 

Conf.  for  Good  City  Gov't. 
"Why  New   York  is  Not   Well  Governed."     J.    B.   Bishop,   Nation  50:  216. 

1890. 
Machine  Politics  in  New  York  City.     Theo.  Roosevelt,  Century,  33:  74. 
Municipal  Reform  in  New  York.     E.  L.  Godkin,  Nation,  13:  84.     1871. 
A  Putrid  Police.     Soc.  Econ.  7:  9.     1894. 

Lexow  Investigation.      "Report  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  Senate  to  in- 
vestigate  the   Police   Department   of   the  city  of  N,  Y  "     Jan.  18,  1895. 

65  pp. 
Lexow  Investigation:   "Report  and  Proceedings  of    the  Senate  Investigating 

Committee  on  the  Police  Department  of  the  City  of  New  York."     5  vols. 

Albany,  1895. 
"Investigation  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works.     Report  of  Committee." 

Theodore  Roosevelt.     New  York  Assembly  Docs.  125,  153,  172,  Sess.  1884. 
Preliminary  Report  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Cities.    (Fassett  Comm.)  Sen. 

Doc,  1889,  No.  57. 


lOO 

Testimony  taken  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Cities.     N.  Y.  Senate  Docs., 

1891.  No.  80.  4  vols. 
"Our  Fight  with   Tammany."     Dr.  Chas.  H.  Parkhurst.     New  York.     Scrib- 

ner's,  1895.  296  pp.  $1.25. 
"Tammany  Ring."     Chapter  88.     Bryce's  Amer.  Commonwealth.     Vol.11. 
City  Vigilance.     A  monthly  issued  by  the  City  Vigilance  League  from  January, 

1894. 
Greater  New  York  Charter  and  Report  of  the  Commission.     Submitted  to  the 

Legislature  of  New  York  February  20,  1897. 

QUINCY,   MASS. 

A  New  Departure,     E.  L.  Godkin.     Nation,  55:  197.   1892. 

Mr.  Adams'  Quincy  Address.     G.  Bradford.     Nation,  55:  221.    1892. 

"Lessons  from  Quincy,  Mass  "     C.  F.  Adams.     Forum,  14:  282.    1892. 

"The  Centennial   Milestone  of  Quincy,  Mass."      C.  F.  Adams.     Cambridge. 

John  Wilson  &  Sons,  1892.     (Same  as  Forum,  14;  282.) 
"Our  Failure  in  Municipal  Government."     G.  Bradford.     Annals  Amer.  Acad. 

3:  691.   1893. 

CITIES  UNDER  OTHER  SYSTEMS. 


'Municipal  Conditions  of."     Hon.   John  Boyd  Thacher.      p.  137.     Proc.  3d 

'         Nat.  Conf.  for  Good  City  Gov't. 

Annual  Reports  of  Citizens  Association.     1 881- 1893. 

BALTIMORE. 

"City  Government  of  Baltimore."     F.  C.  Latrobe.    Taxpayers  Ass'n  Address. 

1889.     P.  148. 
"City  Government  of  Baltimore."     Chas.    J.Bonaparte,      p.  87.     First  Nat'l 

Conference  for  Good  City  Gov't. 
Rule  of  X)riminal  Classes  in  Baltimore.     H.  White.     Nation,  44;  159.   1887. 


City  of  Buffalo.     F.  J.  Shepard.     New  Eng.  Mo.,  14:  237.   1893. 
Well  Governed  Buffalo.     Julian  Ralph.     Harpers  Wkly.,  39:  812.   1895. 
Municipal  Conditions  of.     Frank   M.  Loomis.     Second  Natl.  Conf.  for  Good 
City  Gov't,     p.  344. 

CHICAGO. 

City  Government  of.     Franklin  MacVeagh.  p.  80,  proceedings  First  Nat'l  Conf. 

for  Good  City  Gov't. 
How  to  Govern,   by  a  Practical  Reformer.     Chicago.     Chas.  H.  Kerr  &  Co., 

1x8  pp.  25c. 
Since  the  Adoption  of  Civil  Service  Reform.     Merritt  Star,     p,  162  3rd  Nat. 

Conf.  for  Good  City  Gov't. 
Municipal  Government  in  Chicago.     Rev.  O.  P.  Gifford.     Our  Day,    11:  59. 

1893. 
Administration  of  Chicago      I.   Municipal  History.     II.  Organization.     S.  E. 
Sparling,  Univ.  of  Wis. 


lOl 


MINNEAPOLIS. 


Citizens  Law  Enforcement  League  of  Minneapolis.     Rev.  S.  L.  Speare.     Our 

Day.  9:  315.      1892. 
Municipal  Government  of  Minneapolis.      D.   F.    Simpson.     2nd  Nat'l  Conf. 

Good  City  Gov't,  p.  93. 

NASHVILLE. 

"Appointment  of  a  Receiver  in  Nashville  in  1S69."     Dr.  Louis  S.  Merriam. 

Am.  Law  Rev.,  25:  393.      1891. 
Municipal  Conditions  of  Nashville.     A.   V.    S.   Lindsley.     p.    102,  3rd  Nat'l 

Conf.  for  GQod  City  Gov't. 
Municipal  Gov't  of  Nashville.     John  L.   Kennedy.     City  Government,  i:  108. 

1896. 
Experiments  in  Municipal  Government.       A.  S.  Colyar.     Southern  Bivouac, 

vol.  II,  No.  5:  306. 

NEW  HAVEN,   CONN. 

The  Republic  of  New  Haven.     Chas.  H.  Baltimore.     J.  H.,  Univ.  Press,  1886. 

$2.00. 
Town  and  City  Government  of  New  Haven.     Chas.  H.  Levermore.     J.  H.  U, 

Studies,  IV:  10.      1886. 

NEW  ORLEANS. 

Municipal  Conditions.     Walter  B.  Spencer.    2nd  Nat'l  Conf.  Good  City  Gov't, 

p.  407. 
Municipal  History  of.     W.  W.  Howe.     J.  H.  U.  Studies,  VII:  4.     (1889.)   25c. 

PROVIDENCE,     R.     I. 

Publications  of  Advance  Club.     Providence. 

Government  of   Providence,    Town  and  City,    1636-1889.      Geo.   G.   Wilson. 
Providence,  Preston  &  Rounds,  1889.     $1.00. 

ST.   LOUIS. 

City  Government  of  St.  Louis.     Prof.   Marshall   Snow.     J.  H.  U.  Studies,  V: 

4.     1887. 
Notes  on  City  Government  of  St.  Louis.     Albert  Shaw.     Cent.,  52:  253.     1896. 


Government  of  St.  Paul.     H.  J.  Gorden  and  Irwin  Beaumont.      City  Gov't,  i: 

13.     1896. 
St.  Paul.     W.  H.  Lightner.      Second  Nat'l  Conference  for   Good  City  Gov't. 

p.  105. 

^  SAN    FRANCISCO. 

Establishment  of  City  Government  in  San  Francisco.     B.  Moses.     J.  H.  Univ. 

Studies  VII:  2  and  3.      1889. 
Civic  Awakening  in.     A.  Knapp.     Arena  12:  241.      1895. 
Civil  Service  Reform  in.     Good  Gov't  15:  119.      1896. 
Municipal  Conditions  of.     Isaac  T.  Milliken.      Second  Nat'l  Conf.  for  Good 

City  Gov't,     p.  449- 


I02 

Reforms  in.     Outlook,  54:  53.     1896.  * 

Municipal  Conditions  and  the  New  Charter.     J.  D.  Phalen.     Overland  Mo.  28: 

104.      1896. 
Municipal  Government  of.     J.  H.  Stallard.     Overland,  Mo.     Feb.  '97. 

Single  articles  on  other  cities  will  be  found  in  the  Report  of  the  Nat'l  Mu- 
nicipal Conferences. 

BEST  BOOKS  ON  MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT. 

GooDNOw,  Frank  J. 

"Comparative  Administrative  Law."     N.   Y.,    Putnams.     1893.     2   vols. 
$500- 
Covers  the  general  field  of  administration.      Vol.  I,  Bk.  Ill  deals  with  Local 
Administration. 
GooDNOw,  Frank  J, 

"Municipal  Home  Rule;  a  Study  in  Administration."     N,  Y.,  Macmillan. 
1895.     pp.  283.     $1.50. 
Very  good  discussion  of  the  legal  relations  of  the  state   to  the  city  and  the 
abuses  arising  from  this  relation. 
GooDNow,  Frank  J. 

"Municipal  Problems."     N.  Y,,  Macmillan.      1897, 
The  best,  in  fact  the  only  work  in  book  form  covering  the  problems  of  mu- 
nicipal government. 
Conkling,  a.  R. 

"City  Government  in  the  United  States."     N.  Y.,  Appletons.     1894.     pp. 
227.     $1.00. 
Analyzes  the  organization  of  a  typical  American  city. 
Matthews,  Nathan,  Jr. 

"City  Government  of  Boston,"  Mayor  of  Boston,  1891-5.     pp.  288.     Bos- 
ton, Rockwell  &  Churchill.     1895.     (See  Boston.) 
Shaw,  Dr.  Albert: 

"Municipal  Government  in  Great   Britain."     N.  Y.  Century  Co.      1895. 
385  pp.,  $2.00. 
Shaw,  Dr.  Albert: 

"Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe."  N.  Y.  Century  Co.  1895. 
500  pp.,  $2.00. 
From  these  two  works  a  very  satisfactory  knowledge  of  all  the  European  city 
governments  can  be  obtained.  Outside  of  scattered  magazine  articles  they  are 
the  only  source  of  information  accessible.  The  author  has  collected  a  store  of 
interesting  and  instructive  material  which  he  has  arranged  in  systematic  form. 
The  two  works  together  with  those  of  Goodnow  should  be  the  first  to  find  a 
place  in  a  library  on  municipal  government. 

CURRENT  LITERATURE  DEVOTED  TO  MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT. 

A  number  of  papers  and  periodicals  have  appeared  the  last  few  years  devoted 
solely  to  municipal  government  and  municipal  reform.  The  leading  ones  are 
given  below. 


103 

Good  Government.  Official  Journal  of  the  Nat.  Civil  Service  Reform  League. 
Pub.  monthly,  New  York.     $i.oo  per  year. 

City  and  State.  Pub.  weekly.  Philadelphia,  1305  Arch  St.  Herbert  Welsh, 
editor.     $1.00  per  year. 

Municipality  and  County.  Monthly,  202  Main  St.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  J.  Henry 
Wood,  editor.     $2.00  per  year. 

Municipal  Affairs.  Quarterly,  52  Williams  St.,  New  York.  Pub.  by  New 
York  Reform  Club.     First  number  issued  March,  1897. 

Municipal  Year  Book.  J.  Henry  W^ood,  Buffalo,  1897.  A  book  that  fills  a 
long  felt  want  by  summarizing  information  of  all  kinds  on  municipal  gov- 
ernment in  the  United  States. 


"THE  HEATHEN 
CHINEE"  WEEPS 

at  sight  of  the  high-class  laundry 
work  we  tur7i  out.  He  may 
pretend  to  save  you  a  few  cents 
071  your  week' s  washings  but  the 
diff^erence  in  quality  of  work, 
saving  on  wear  and  tear  of 
clothing,  and  general  satisfac- 
tio7i  prompts  your  patronage  of 
a  first-class  establishmeyit,  sicch 
as  the  • 

Alford  Bro's  Laundry 

113=115  North  Carroll  St. 


OLSON  &  OSTIN 


Xtailors 


Everything    pertaining   to    Tailoring 
done  at  Reasonable  Rates 


-^ 


PHONE   662 
.332  STATE  STREET,  CORNER  GORHAM.. 


Sdwin  Sumner  t  Son 

15  Soutb  plnchneg  an& 
502  State  Sts. 


^^^^l!SaA\Vi%  M\i, 


E.  R.  GURTISS 


iDbotoarapber 


VILAS  BLOCK 


Cbe  Capital  Cft)) 
tvvM  Store       ^^^ 

CARRIES  THE  BEST  LINE  OF 

FUNKE'S 

ChocolatesandConfectiooery 

We  manufacture  our  own 
Candies.    Sell  goods  cheaper 
than  elsewhere 


JOHN  J.  LOEHRER 

Corner  State  and  Johnson 


M.S.KLAUBER&CO. 

Clotbfnd  and 
jfurnisbind  Ooods 
ifine  daflorlng 

^T^  ^^  ^^ 

MADISON,  WIS. 


I 


LOEHRER&ANDERSON 


LIVERY 


BICYCLES! 

NAPOLEONS 

ROYAL  BLUE 

5EE  THEM-««  »»-TRY  THEM 

CRESCENTS 

YOU  ALL  KNOW  THEM 

Call  and  see  the  '97  models  at 

The  Larson  Jewelry  Store 


THE  EYES  OF  BEAUTY 

Brighten  at  the  sight  of  our  new 
Cycle  and  Qolf  Suits,  Sweaters, 
Caps,  Belts,  Hose,  etc.     Young  man, 

As  you  Hope 
to  Win 

Do  not  miss  this  chance.  We  '11 
make  the  prices  easy. 

Cassius  B.  Nelson 

The  Clothier  and  Hatter 


BARLOW  S.  OTT 


COMPLETE  LINE  AND 
ORRECT  PRICES 


Drugs  and  Druggist  Sundries 


21  NORTH  PINCKNEY  STREET 


t 


urcell... 
Dentist 


30  ynifflin  St. 


GROVES' 

PIANO  WAREROOMS 

...KEEP  EVERYTHING  IN    MUSIC... 

PIANOS 

SOLD    ON    MONTHLY    PAYMENTS 

PRICES  AWAY  DOWN 

Latest  Popular  Sheet  Music 

ALWAYS  ON  HAND 

J.  W.  &  A.  E.  GROVES 


A.  G.  NIELSON 


Ipboto^rapber 


23  SOUTH  PINCKNEY  STREET 


MADISON,  WIS. 


FRANK  8.  WARREN  ANDREW  S.   BROWN 

TELEPHONE  53 

WARREN  &  BROWN 

(Hess  &  Schmitz'  Old  Stand) 

Ciuery^Boardipi^ 

STABLE 


CORNER  STATE  AND  OILMAN 
STREETS 

yiRadison,  His. 

Funeral  and  Party  Carriages  a  Specialty 


(balace  of 
Sweets 


XIalF?  ot  tbe  Uown 

Those  delicious  Ice  Cream  Sodas,  Crushed 
Fruit  —  Strawberry,  Raspberry,  Peach, 
Pineapple.  Ice  Cream  and  Ices.  A  box 
of  Bitter  Sweets  for  the  opera. 

109  State  St. 


ART  ROOMS,,,, 


13  WEST  MAIN  ST, 


Stew=dents=a=ten=shun 


Besf  (;abit\Gfpl7otes 
$2.50  per  Dozeo 


WARRANTED 


N.    P.   JONKS 


WHEN  YOU  NEED  MUSIC,  STRINGS, 
PIANO  TUNED,  ETC., 
DON'T  SHUN 

"27" 

-WARNER'S  MUSIC  STORE, 

"27"  West  riain  Street  (that's  us) 


"CITY  AND  STATE" 

An  8  page  independent  journal.      Published  Weekly.       HERBERT  WELSH,  Managing  Editor. 

The  object  of  City  and  State  is  the  advancement  of  good 
government  in  Philadelphia,  in  Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  country  at 
large.  This  paper  aims  to  represent  truly  the  mass  of  the  people, 
and  to  convey  to  them  such  facts  and  considerations  about  public 
affairs  as  most  seriously  concern  them,  which  are  now  extremely 
difficult,  if  ngt  wholly  impossible,  to  arrive  at.  CiTY  AND  STATE 
represents  no  party,  faction  or  clique,  and  is  the  organ  of  no  so- 
ciety, league  or  committee.  It  will  always  endeavor,  however,  to 
keep  itself  in  kindly  touch  and  in  the  broadest  sympathy  with  every 
project  and  movement  of  honest  men  and  women  looking  to  the 
well-being  of  society.  It  aims  to  give  the  exact  truth  on  all  mat- 
ters relating  to  the  welfare  of  the  city  and  State.  Free  from  bias 
or  improper  influence  of  any  kind. 

WHAT  IS  THOUGHT  OF  IT 

"We  consider  City  and  State  the  ablest  and  bravest  municipal  reform  paper  pub- 
lished. Very  few,  indeed,  of  our  exchanges  are  read  with  so  much  interest  or  profit. 
We  should  be  glad  to  give  what  help  we  can  in  widening  your  audience."  —  The  Outlook. 

"City  and  State  \%  z.vs\osXxQixe&\\\xx%  illustration  of  the  service  which  journalism 
can  render  to  promote  the  highest  civism.  Such  a  paper  is  a  witness  for  municipal 
righteousness,  and  a  teacher,  as  it  seems  to  me,  of  incomparable  value.  I  wish  it  most 
heartily  success." — Rt.  Rev.  Henry  C.  Potter,  D.  D. 

"City  and  State  is  one  of  the  few  newspapers  whose  editorials  I  read.  It  seems  to 
me  one  of  the  sanest,  most  virile,  most  courageous  newspapers  in  the  country."  — 
Rev.   Washington  Gladden,  D.  D. 

"I  am  a  regular  reader  of  City  and  State.  The  spirit  in  which  it  is  written  is  es- 
pecially needed  in  these  times.  I  hope  the  paper  will  be  as  prosperous  as  it  is  useful." 
— Hon.  Carl  Schurz. 

"City  and  State"  is  published  every  Thursday.     Publication    office   ijoj    Arch 
Street,  Philadelphia.      Terms:  One  dollar  a  year.  Write  for  sample  COpieS. 

U.  S.  WHEEL: 

W.   A.  TAYLOR  F.   H.   BERG 

TAYLOR  &  BERG 

Expert  Bicycle  Repairmen 

Dealers  in 

BICYCLES  AND  BICYCLE  SUNDRIES 

Corner  State,  Henry  and 
Johnson  Streets 

MADISON,  WIS. 

PHONE  6SO 


C.  B.  WELTON  W.  H.  WILT 

C.  B.  WELTON  &  CO. 

THE  CASH 

Clothiers,  Hatters  and 
..Furnishers.. 


CORRECT  STYLES  AND   PERFECT  FITTING 
GARMENTS  A  SPECIALTY 

Lowest  Prices  Always  Guaranteed 

15  West  Main  Street         MADISON,  WIS. 


JOHN  DAMM  , 

DEALER  IN 

Fine  Cigars  and  Fancy  Smoking 
. .  .  Tobacco  .  .  . 

226  STATE  ST. 


GEM      RESTAURANT 

114  KING  STREET 

Under  new  management.     Meals  and 
Short  Orders  at  all  hours. 


R  W.  CURTISS 


Ipbotoarapber 


IF  YOU  WANT 

To  Buy  a  Wheel  A) 

To  Rent  a  Wheel  A) 

To  See  a  Good  Wheel  A: 

To  Have  a  Wheel  Repaired  JSC 

Call  at  the  A: 

State  Street  Cyclery 

Phone  586  (**roS°') 


n.  n.  QERLflCH 

ARTIST  IN 

Manufacturing  ^  Repairing 

...Musical  Instruments... 


Dealer  in  Trimmings  for  Instruments.     Piano 

Tuning,  Fine  Repairing  and  Refinishing 

of  Pianos  and  Organs  Skillfully 

Executed 


Corner  State  and  Henry  Streets 
MADISON,  WI5. 

Telephone  650 


ARE  YOU  IN  NEED 

of  anything  in  this  line? 

BREAD 

ROLLS 

PIES 

CAKES 
MACAROONS 

LADY  FINGERS 
CREAM  PUFFS 

ANGEL  FOOD 

If  so,  call  at  the 

West  Baking  Co.,  421  state  St. 


"The  Municipal  Year  Book 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES" 

is  under  course  of  preparation  and  will  be  published  by  J.  Henry  Wood,  31  Church 
street,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  All  phases  of  municipal  management  in  the  200  largest  cities  will 
receive  minute  and  complete  attention.  The  data  will  be  tabulated  in  easily  compara- 
ble form.  There  will  be  a  directory  of  municipal  officials,  showing  titles  and  names 
of  all  principal  officials,  salaries,  terms  of  office,  etc.,  etc.  Each  department  will  be 
treated  at  length  and  in  detail.  Subscription  price  $5  per  copy.  When  subscription 
edition  is  exhausted  the  price  will  be  $10. 

MUNICIPALITY  and  COUNTY 

Published  at  31  Church  street,  Buffalo,  New  York. 
Price  $1  per  annum.     A  National  Monthly  Magazine,  giving  condensed  information 
concerning  municipal  government  and  municipal  reform.     Established  1894. 


Your 
Friend 

the.. 


% 
■r\ 


Kenwood 
Blc)fck 


.       iA  Wheel  You  Can 
v#     W      '  Depend  Upon. 

For  Lightness,  Swiftness  and 
Strength  it  is  Unsurpassed, 

You  can  learn  all  about  it 
by  addressing 

Hamilton  Kenwood  Cycle  Co. 

203-20S>2or  SXanal  St.,  Qiicas:o. 


I  TRACY,  GIBBS  L  CO.  | 

%  ll^nnters 


/fS     College  morft  a  Spectalti? 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA 
LIBRARY 

This  is  the  date  on  which  this 
book  was  charged  out. 


i^iZ 


[30m-6,'ll] 


